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 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 copy it back to the main Peer review page with your signature (~~~~).
I've worked extensively on this article since October, just simply stunned that it was not of better quality when I found it. I would like to nominate it for FA and would appreciate any suggestions on what more to add or change before that review process. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Small comment. For someone unfamiliar with the context of the article, neither the place (ie. United states, you just mentioned alabama) and time (19??) are mentioned in the lead. These are necessary to define the spatial and temporal context. CG (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I had a infobox that mentioned that, but it looked bad with the photo at the top of the page. So, thanks for catching the time frame in the lead. With Alabama and the term "African Americans" is it not clear where it took place? --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think you've done an outstanding job with the article, Moni3. You've put me to shame. --Dystopos (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again, Dystopos. It was a pleasure, and I hope the article reflects the importance of the event. --Moni3 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was drastically revamped by a Collaboration of the Week by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music a few months back; it was passed as a Good Article about a week later. I'm hoping to take this article to FAC in the next week or so after I add a few more things. I would mainly appreciate a copyedit, and any other concerns you might have. I'm hoping this article can eventually serve as a model for future musical group FAs. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following years of underground success, R.E.M. entered the mainstream - possibly link Underground music and Mainstream (terminology), not everyone knows what these terms mean.
A question as such, you introduce the band with the singular "is" then later refer to them as a plural "their", "they" and "were", is this ok as it switches between the two often?
It's definitely supposed to be singular ("is"); I'll have to comb through the article and fix that soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the musicians first mention in the body it would be suitable to tell the reader what instruments they each play (i had to scroll to the lead to find out)
R.E.M. had recorded its debut EP - link EP at its first mention, not everyone knows what the term is
A positive review of the EP by NME - you need to attribute the review and quotes to the person who said them, that one person does not represent the entire magazine
The writer is credited in the citation. If this were the EP's aricle I'd be more inclined to mention the author by name in the prose, but to mention him in the prose of this article would be awkward and unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and reached number 78 in 1983 - where? on the Billboard Hot 100 (America) i assume?
I'm not exactly the best peer reviewer and no doubt only a handful of these comments will be helpful, but the article is in pretty good shape and i could only spot these minor things out, good job. If only the Metal project had something as half decent as the Alternative project does with activity and helpful reviewers...i can keep dreaming. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"While rehearsing for the ceremony, the band recorded a cover of John Lennon's "#9 Dream" for "Instant Karma: The Amnesty International Campaign to Save Darfur," a tribute album benefiting Amnesty International, as well as releasing the song as a single for the album and the campaign, "#9 Dream" was Berry's first studio recording with the band since his departure almost a decade earlier." - This really long sentence needs to be cut into two. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stipe had suggested the new album would be "primitive and howling," and the band had released a stark political protest song called "Final Straw" free over the Internet during the invasion of Iraq, leading fans to expect a return to roots." - Try to avoid redundant words like "new". The album is currently three years old, and the statement will be old when R.E.M. release a new album. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of Time's lead single "Losing My Religion" became the group's most successful track release when it reached number four on the Billboard charts." - "Most successful" is an opinion. "Highest charting Billboard single" or something similar would be more appropriate to say. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A lush pop album, Out of Time boasts a wider array of sounds than their previous releases." - According to whom? LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stipe had suggested the new album would be "primitive and howling," and the band had released a stark political protest song called "Final Straw" free over the Internet during the invasion of Iraq, leading fans to expect a return to roots." - The fact that the song is "stark" is one's own personal interpretation, and is therefore original research. Also, the mention of fans expectations is mere speculation. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those items (expect the "Losing My Religion" bit) are left over from the pre-COTW version of the page. I will fix them soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple of minor alterations and don't have much more to add. It's a very good, concise, well-referenced, thorough read. My minor points however are as follows.
The wikilink to promotion and relegation is for the first time relegation is mentioned, but there is a previous mention of promotion. Is there any reason the promotion word wasn't wikilinked instead?
Done - wikilinked the first use or "promotion". Failure to do so was just a cock-up on my part :-)
Mick Horne tendered his resignation after eleven years in charge. Should it be eleven or 11 - see WP:MOSNUM?
Done
Is there a reference for The Steels have always played their games at what was originally called the Bracken Moor Stadium, the former home of Stocksbridge Works.?
Done - ref added to the Non-League Club Directory, which has no info in the "previous grounds" section therefore they have always played at the one ground (I presume the "always played there" was the part you felt needed referencing.....?
Ai that's right. Peanut4 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about alternating the alignment from left to right of the images to avoid some of the white space?
Done
The Steels' record defeat was a 2–7 loss to Witton Albion in the 2001–02 season. I prefer 7-2 rather than 2-7, even if it a defeat since it does qualify the score with the word loss.
Done
I've removed comparatively from Having only been in existence since 1986, the club has had comparatively few managers. since comparatively would imply there is something to compare it to. I know what you mean by including the word so feel free to add it back in again.
Not a big deal, really, I'm happy to leave it out
I'm never a big fan of lists of officials, particularly in this list - commercial manager, stadium manager and programme editor. It seems unnecessary information to me especially as they don't have their own entries in this case.
I've taken out the three you highlighted and rolled the rest into one list, hope this is OK
I think that's it. Peanut4 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments! ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth explaining that Stocksbridge Works F.C. were the works team of the then-British Steel plant, that way the "Steels" part of the name is explained.
Done
Stocksbridge Works F.C. and Oxley Park F.C. are both redlinks. Two approaches could be used - either including a summary of their histories in this article, or creating articles for both (assuming they played at a high enough level).
The Works team played in the NCEL, so they'd qualify for an article. I can find no record of what league Oxley Park played in, but as The Football Club History Database doesn't list them then it must have been a pretty lowly one. Given that, what do you think's the best way to proceed.........?
I've just double-checked and found that the correct name of the club was actually Oxley Park Sports F.C., and googling that name produces just four results, all of which refer to the club only in the context of having been one of the clubs that formed SPSFC - no other info appears to be available.....
I've gone ahead and created Stocksbridge Works F.C., the other club will just have to remain as a black link on the grounds of lack of available information......
I am another who is never a big fan of lists of officials, as such data can quickly become out of date. I recommend keeping it to an absolute minimum. For pro clubs I usually recommend only including those notable enough for their own article, in this case I would keep it to the most important positions only, perhaps even removing the list completely on the grounds that both manager and chairman are already included in the infobox.
I don't mind keeping an eye on the sources and keeping the info up-to-date. Given that existing FAs on non-league clubs Margate and Leek Town have this info in, someone might query at FAC why this one didn't....
Many thanks for your comments!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more point following a recent edit.
The following season Stocksbridge again finished in sixth place, although on this occasion this was not sufficient to qualify for the play-offs I think this line needs claryfying. Does this mean they didn't finish high enough to qualify for the play-offs? It sounds an stupid question but given the way promotion and relegation changes in non-league football I feel it needs a slight re-write.
Otherwise very good work Peanut4 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done although I'm not sure I'm mad on the wording..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there would be a technical reason behind this!! I've made a slight alteration to the text. Feel free to make any alterations back if you feel it right. Peanut4 (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list suffers slightly from the fact that Soccerbase data is incompete for the club's early years, I'm currently going through and verifying all the stats with non-Soccerbase sources, but I'd be interested to hear if there's anything else that needs to be amended/improved.
The perennial problem of caretaker managers raises its head again: I'm sure somebody must have been nominally in charge between Summers and Peacock, or Burkinshaw and Richardson, as well as in other inter-regnal periods, but reporting was not as vigourous in those days.
Some of the dates for early appointments are approximations: if it says 1st of the month, I suspect that can be read as "an unspecified date in the month": those might be my fault.
Also probably down to me, though I didn't notice it at the time, there is a discrepancy between the data in the seasons article and here. For example: between the war and the end of the 57-58 season, there were 541 league matches according to the seasons article, but Archie Clark only managed 400 games in that period according to this page. Kevin McE (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Archie Clark issue can be put down to Soccerbase data not including non-league games - this is covered by the disclaimer at the top. Gaps in Soccerbase's data would also explain the lack of specific dates for appointments. As for the caretakers issue, there's not much we can do in the absence of a reliable source. This is probably only an issue with Burkinshaw, as Summers left and was replaced by Peacock during the close season.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would your Summers-Peacock solution also be applicable to that stressful summer between Flanaghan and Pulis, and so allow the deletion of the rather anomalous appearance of Neil Smillie with no matches to his name? Kevin McE (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure from memory that Smillie in fact took over in about March, but as the source contradicts that and that's all we have to go on, I guess he can be taken out..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked up the club's results on Soccerbase and inserted their record between Burky and Damo against "unknown caretaker" (which was actually Burky's assistant Keith Blount if memory serves, but there's no reliable source to quote on that.......ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a significant gap between Freddie Cox (who ceased on 1 April 1965) and Basil Hayward (who started on 1 January 1966). --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is another Soccerbase error, I will correct the dates and stats based on allfootballers.com ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! - you've now made the gap bigger! Do you mean that Hayward took over on 1 June 1965? --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 01:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good however, I would base on the table on the other List of managers that have reached FL,instead of the current table which you now have, take a look at List of Manchester United F.C. managers to see what I mean NapHit (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Neil Smillie was at least still listed as a player while he was manager, was he not, even if he didn't select himself? Does that make him a player manager? If not, you might want to re-phrase the note about being an ex-player who returned to be manager, as he had not left.
If the play-off penalty shoot-out deserves a footnote to mention that it is listed as a draw,should the same not be done for the Golden goal defeat to Millwall in the Assoc Members' Cup, and the Paul Haylock penalty shoot out against Brighton in the League Cup? Kevin McE (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A golden goal defeat is still just a defeat, there's no reason to note that as anything out of the ordinary. I'd somehow contrived to forget about the Brighton match. The best solution might just be to change the Pulis footnote to a general one, which I shall do now..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Neil Smillie issue was simply a case of me putting the wrong reference in - now corrected ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Golden Film article is written in good prose and proper detail. I would like to use this peer review to receive some feedback before renominating the article as a featured article candidate. Previously, the article was not promoted due to the fact that nobody voted or commented after the featured article director restarted the nomination. Thank you for your help. – Ilse@ 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the two occurrences of "didn't" into "did not", as suggested in the automated review. – Ilse@ 12:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been doing extensive expansion to it in the past month in hopes of eventually receiving GA and FA status and want feedback on what more can be done to make this a better article.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have finally finished and expanding the history section on the City. I also feel that it covers all relevant aspects of the city.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the history section is too long for the main article, and should be something like five paragraphs, instead of seven subsections. This would also shorten the very long table of contents. I think the current history section should be moved to the separate article History of Geelong. – Ilse@ 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sections 'Notable people from Geelong', 'Sister cities', and 'See also' should be removed from the article. The politics section could be expanded with some information about the sister cities, the city government, and information about the mayor(s). – Ilse@ 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references should be formatted consistently, including a retrieved-date. – Ilse@ 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For several sections there are no references; these should be added. – Ilse@ 15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the politics to cover local government, just linked to the category 'people from Geelong' and deleted the section, and fixed up the reference formatting, and added some. Thanks for the ideas so far. Wongm (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs expanding. See WP:LEAD for some tips.
The infobox needs completing - electorates, distance to Melbourne, climate and elevation.
I would move the history section below the geography section
The last two sub sections in history are choppy. Consider combining into paragraphs.
A reference is needed for Pyramid Building Society.
"is larger than the other major Australian cities of Hobart, Darwin, Cairns and Townsville." I would change this to read, "According the Australian Bureau of Statistics, at [year], Geelong was the nth biggest city in Australia." with a source. See List of cities in Australia by population for some ideas.
I would ease off on the historical images. To my mind they are making the article look cluttered.
The heading 1900s Now As a city - fix capitalisation in the heading.
Demographics - some socio-economic material may be useful. Is Geelong a working-class city? I would expand on the ethnic make up of the city. What has been the contribution of the Croatian community to Geelong, for example? The marital status material looks superfluous, unless it is somehow different than elsewhere in Australia. Is Geelong growing, shrinking, ageing?
Geography - needs referencing. Some details on the layout of the city would be useful; where are the industrial, commercial and residential precincts? where is the growth happening? Has there been renewal in the inner city?
Climate - a table may be useful, similar to the one at Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. Could possibly be a subsection of geography.
Education - needs referencing. When was Deakin University founded?
Transport - under-referenced. I would compress the transport section, removing the sub headings and much of the detail about train services. Link to rail lines where that information is better shown. I would also lose the {{main}} links as the links in the body of the article should be sufficient.
Geelong in film - pick a few and write as prose.
Media - remove sub sections.
The sport section is choppy; try and combine into paragraphs if possible. It also needs referencing.
Visitor attractions - de-listify and write as prose.
The article has some potential and the history section is thorough, although it could do with a tidy as mentioned. The article as a whole does need considerable work. Good luck and let me know if you need a hand. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had struck though what has been done so far. Wongm (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More todo updated - just need the lead. Wongm (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead now done. Now listed at WP:FACWongm (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering nominating it for GA, but since I have not written a non-fiction book article, I am unsure about some of the issues involved in these articles. I would appreciate any feedback provided. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently tackled a non-fiction book (in the middle of an FAC with it). You may want to browse the comments on it at Wikipedia:Peer review/The World Without Us/archive1 and at its FAC. Some comments on this article:
I'd be hesitate to put quotations in the lead section - should stay with a general overview/summary. Quotes are specific.
The "Subject" section uses a non-standard structure with the open sentence "...who were dying:" followed by the sub-sections. I admire the unique thinking there, but don't be shocked if someone objects to it. The structure used at The World Without Us uses a "Background" for the book/author's origin and sources, a "Synopsis" for spelling out the contents, and a "Genre" section for relating its approach to the general genre - in And the Band Played On's case 'investigative journalism' or 'science/medical books'.
The "Subject" section may be too detailed about the book's contents. It sometimes (not always) takes the historical tone that would be expected in the HIV/AIDS in the United States article, rather than an article about a book.
Watch out for puncuation in quotes. See WP:PUNC or examples at User talk:BillDeanCarter#Punctuation in quotes. An example from this article: ...made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity." - should be ...made Shilts an "AIDS celebrity".
Be a more specific with "It remained on the New York Times Bestseller List for five weeks" - what did it peak at?
The part on "...have been compared to Shilts' book as a standard." left me a bit confused: standard in terms of what? Research? Writing quality? Dramatics? Popularity?
There is good coverage of newpaper reviews, but you may also want to include the response from some science/academic journals such as The Journal of Social History (Winter89), the British Journal of Addiction (Sep88), Annals of Internal Medicine (May88), and American Journal of Law & Medicine (Vol. 12 Issue 3/4). --maclean 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Maclean25. At this time, I don't intend to nominate it for FA. I had some questions about citing for a nonfiction book, but I think those have been answered. (I think...) --Moni3 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to get the page The Carpenters to the featured article (FA) status. If you could please make edits on grammar and "voice," as well as help with citations, please do so. Also, leave constructive criticism that's not repetitive. For example, if someone says, "Make introduction longer," then don't say, "Make introduction longer." A simple "I agree with ..." will suffice. Also, once it is finished, please put "<s></s>" around your comment.
My goal for this page is to become at least of A status, but I wish to shoot for FA status. Is anyone interested in helping? Cuyler91093 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to give the article a copyedit when you're ready for that step; just drop a note on my talk page... MeegsC | Talk 11:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I did quite a bit of work on the references, but much is left for you to do (e.g. websites, This Is Your Life, Lovers and Other Strangers, and Superstars of the 70s). I removed an entire paragraph that was fannish trivia (sorry!). I removed a couple unreliable sources. I added two very reliable sources in the WP:LEDE about Karen's death and its impact on public awareness of anorexia. SO you need to do much more of what i did.. remove fannish trivia (that bit about "weee we're number one" is an example), fix the refs, add more reliable refs, add more serious discussion from a critical viewpoint, etc. I'm sure there are many WP:MOS violations but I haven't committed WP:MOS to memory yet... Oh I didn't look at the licensing of the images.. are they OK? Gotta run.. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: I hope to get it to FA status by February or March. Then I can request it be featured on the front page on February 4 (Karen's passing) or March 2 (Karen's birthday). If not plausible, then I will go with October 15 (Richard's birthday). --Cuyler91093contributions 06:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the footnotes section refers to "Coleman, 1999", but the only Coleman reference is dated 1994. Which is correct?MeegsC | Talk 11:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Ling.Nut 13:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More issues:
You need to find another source for the statement that the group is one of the "best-selling acts of all time", which shouldn't be hard. In general, you shouldn't use somebody's personal website to back up a claim like this!
I'm sorry, but I disagree, and so will the FA reviewers. These are personal fansites! Please use something like the Guinness book of records, or Billboard magazine or some other reliable source here, not a web fansite! :) MeegsC | Talk 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I used Billboard Magazine. More specifically, it's a review from someone from "All Music Guide". Is that better? --Cuyler91093contributions 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! That's great. Sorry if it seems I'm being a pain here; it's just that I know this is the sort of thing the FA reviewers tend to hammer on—and now they can't! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Childhood" section, it says Richard went off to college, while Karen went to high school. It then says Karen asked Richard to intervene and get her out of PE classes. Was he still at the high school then? Was it a year before he went off to college? Currently, it reads as though he started college the year they moved.
I clarified that a little bit. I'll try to do some more a little later. --Cuyler91093contributions 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Richard Carpenter Trio" section starts with the sentence "Karen had been practicing the drums for a year by then". By when?This whole first paragraph needs clarification. Why did they want to start a trio rather than a duo? What other instrument were they planning to include? Who was Wes Jacobs, and why were they so keen to meet him? You've assumed some level of knowledge on the part of your reader, which isn't appropriate.
Fixed the "by then". Thank you for that. I will work on the other stuff later. --Cuyler91093contributions 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Richard Carpenter and Karen trying to get out of PE a bit. --Cuyler91093contributions 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching my video now for clarification as to why Richard wanted Wes Jacobs. --Cuyler91093contributions 05:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I clarified most of the sentences. Thank you again! --Cuyler91093contributions 05:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to everything I can find (with the exception of one fan website, which is cited in the article), Flat Baroque was nominated but did not win the Grammy Award in 1972 for Best Instrumental. Do you have a reliable source that shows this is correct?MeegsC | Talk 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps, but I found something on the site [1]. Even though it's a fan site, it was taken from their official fan club newsletters, in which Karen and Richard were closely affiliated. I'll add that as a citation to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood me; sorry I wasn't clear. Before you changed it, the table said Richard won the Grammy for that song; the article itself still says that. And that was what I was questioning. That's the danger of using fan websites as sources (since that's presumably where the information came from originally). It would be far safer to check for information at the Grammy website if you're not going to source it from reliable printed material! : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I've changed it. Somebody obviously is deliberately changing it back. They were only nominated. I will change it back to nominated. --Cuyler91093contributions 22:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the article history, it looks like when you updated the table, you forgot to change the text just above it (which said Richard had won for Flat Baroque). Both places are correct now, so no worries! And fortunately, it doesn't look like somebody else is trying to change it back! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay okay I understand now. I changed it from "Richard won a Grammy" to "Richard was nominated for a Grammy". Thanks so much for clarifying. :) --Cuyler91093contributions 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all the criticism you guys have to offer? I'm going to nominate it again and hope something comes out. If not, I'll just do more work to the article. --Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 04:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this B-class sports biography for peer review because it appears to be close to GA status. Any recommendations to improve or expand this article are welcome. I would ask reviewers to pay close attention to MOS issues. In addition, please be on the lookout for prose that lacks clarity and precision. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated!
I wish I could be more helpful with these reviews, but you keep giving me great articles to read!!! Honestly, you need to be a shittier writer if you want a more constructive review!!! All kidding aside, this article is a GA now, and would easily pass GA review if nominated at WP:GAC. Also, if you have prose concerns, try asking for help at the league of copyeditors. I am not very good at copyediting, but they are. You get much better results if, besides listing the article, you drop a personal note on an editors talk page, like you did with mine. Just like your last article, this one is well written and easy to follow, meticulously referenced, and looks feature quality as it stands today. I would skip GA and go straight for an WP:FAC nomination. You should be very proud. The ONLY issue I can see, and some one will catch it at FAC, is that there are hyphens where there should be ndashes. You can either manually fix these, OR, go to User:Brighterorange. He has an automated script he can run on the article which fixes a lot of those pointless and easy to miss MOS issues, like the hyphen to ndash conversions, and he is always happy to help with those things. Just drop a note on his talk page, and he will be sure to help out. Other than that, this is a great article. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I caught. You switch usage of the Washington Senators with the Washington Nationals several times throughout the article. I know that they used both names at various times during their history, and it appears they may have changed their names during his tenure there. I would reword this so it is more clear. It appears that they are two separate teams, and this needs to be cleared up. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, Thank you for all your feedback--and your kind words!! I'll keep an eye out for cases where I used Washington Senators and Washington Nationals interchangeably. This doesn't surprise me. Earlier, I ran into the same problem with the Cleveland Blues, a team that is often referred to (prematurely) as the Cleveland Indians. Thanks also for recommending Brighterorange's automated script. No matter how closely I review an article beforehand, certain MOS issues tend to elude me. I'll contact Brightorange right now. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please double check all of that CLOSELY too... The Nationals/Senators thing gets very confusing, not just in this article, but in source material as well. It is often not clear when each name was used (indeed, if I remember correctly, both names were in use at the same time during some periods of the teams existence). The Wikipedia article on the Twins, for example, always refers to them as the Senators (except for a passing mention of the Nationals name). Also, the uninitated may NOT be aware of the fact that the current National League franchise is the FOURTH different Nationals/Senators franchise in DC (the first, the AA/NL team from the 1890's went defunct, the second is now the Twins, the third is now the Rangers, and the fourth is the former Expos franchise)... Maybe a footnote or something so that this is clear, but does not interfer with the flow of the text. Sometimes a footnote can be useful as a way of explaining something in detail, but which is of marginal importance to the narative of the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is GOOD to know! It sounds as though I should use the name, Washington Senators, and note parenthetically that the team was popularly known as the "Nationals." I ran into a similar bit of confusion when working on Youngstown Ohio Works. All of the newspaper coverage referred to the "Champs," which was not the official name of the franchise. This is a much bigger issue, given the importance of the team. I'll go with "Senators" and point out that "Nationals" (or "Nats") was commonly used by fans. Thanks for this observation!! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is to confirm that Brighterorange ran his automated script for endashes. I substituted Washington Senators for Washington Nationals, noting parenthetically that the team was popularly known as "the Nationals." I also followed your suggestion to request additional copy editing from the League of Copy Editors. Thanks, again, for your feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reread the last paragraph you wanted me to check over. It looks exactly how I would do it. Citing the author directly ("As John Doe said in .....") is the exact way to handle a situation where the material may be controversial. Since it isn't a widespread account, and relies on the word of a single report, naming the author of that report ensures that it is clear WHO says it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) One more thing I thought of. It is by NO MEANS required, but you may want to consider using {{Mlbretired}} as an infobox. It is more informative; though infoboxes are moot in FAC discussions, and I do not endorse one over the other. Look at Joe Torre to see how well it organizes information... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've never before read that Johnson had a vested financial interest in defending Stahl, and a published account by someone who claimed to have heard it from a deceased party in the conflict (one who himself had an axe to grind) struck me as dubious. I'm glad to hear this passage doesn't come off as conjecture. The infobox you recommended looks great! I'll try to incorporate it into the article this evening. Thanks, again, -- twelsht (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Caught some more issues:
Done You say that he started managing the Blues in 1900, but the infobox says 1901...
Done There is still a Nationals that needs to be turned into a Senators
Done In the section on his time with the Blues, you only mention a single game. Is there ANY more information on this time? What was his general record as a manager? The single game against the Tigers seems to be out of proportion.
Sorry to keep coming up with more stuff, but you know, each read I spot a few more things... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no need to apologize! Thanks for catching these things. I'm not sure I can expand much on McAleer's management of the Blues, because he was with them a rather short time. But your point is well taken. I'll see what I can dig up on the Blues' record. If anything else catches your eye, don't hesitate to mention it. Thanks, as always! -- twelsht (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding this discrepancy. The correct date was 1901. The AL Blues didn't exist in 1900. While their record was terrible (they ended the season with 54 wins and 82 losses), McAleer wasn't responsible. He only managed the team for three games before moving on to St. Louis. Thanks, again, for catching this! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC) twelsht (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too found this article well cited, well written, and with enough substance for FA status. I am not a good copy editor, so I can't help much in that area, but found your citations right on. Clearly, Twelsht, working on the Youngstown, Ohio FAC had a great impact on your ability to follow the MOS and the Featured Article criteria; I applaud that. I learned a lot from that process as well. I have to agree with Jayron32 and say that you should request a FAC as soon as you feel reasonable. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Daysleeper, I really appreciate your support! I certainly agree with your assessment of the peer review process. What a resource! Thanks, again, -- twelsht (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above assessments that the article is ready for GA status. It is well written and well cited. I am not a copy editor, but it looks decent to me. I do not, however, think it is ready for FA status. Here is what I would work on:
Done Expand the discussion of his introduction of the president throwing out the first pitch. This seems to be his most important, longest lasting contribution to baseball tradition, and it only gets a single mention in the introduction.
Done Expand the section on his playing career
Done Split the discussion of his part-ownership of the Red Sox into a different section from his career as manager.
Done Take a look at the article on Joe Torre and decide whether to use the term "Managerial career" or "Managing career." Either way it should be standardized across the articles on baseball managers.
Done Break the manager section into subsections on his time with different teams
Once this peer review is over you should immediately nominate the article for GA status.
Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I acted on your suggestions, and they improved the article. The "Playing career" section now includes material that places McAleer's career in the context of his era--a rather rowdy one, I might add. Regarding the customary request for the U.S. President to throw out the first ball of the season, I drew a bit more attention to McAleer's role in its initiation. But I don't see a need to devote much more space to this event. It really wasn't the highlight of his career. The fact that McAleer is remembered primarily for this innovation shows how thoroughly his role in the development of the AL has been overlooked. I acted more fully on your other recommendations. Please don't hesitate to let me know if anything else catches your eye. Thanks for your feedback! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in nominating the article for GA or FA status. I've based this article on the FA's of Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and Yosemite National Park. Any suggestions editors can give for improvement before nominating it is appreciated. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Keep them coming. Suggestions 1) The bit about coming off the List of World Heritage Sites in danger should be merged smoothly in somewhere. 2) I don't see much information on the economics of running the park. I see good numbers on the restoration cost, but where is their income (how much state, federal, how much admission fees, etc) and what are the running costs? It is unfortunately something that is missed in all of the other articles you pointed out, which also seem otherwise great. With those items fixed, I can't see anything else separating this from FA. I'm not a great copyeditor though, perhaps there are improvements someone can point out on that front. - TaxmanTalk 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I included a section about park economics under park history, and moved the 1-sentence paragraph. Thank you for your suggestions and comments. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Though the economics section seems a bit out of place, I can't immediately say where it would be better. Also the sentence "In 2001, the National Park Service set a goal to generate $161 million US from fees and income by 2005." needs some context on how it relates to this park. Finally $35k seems incredibly low, but if that's what the source says, so be it. Depending on how your schedule is you could delist this here and take it to FAC right now if you wanted to. I'm sure that in short order you could deal with any of the suggestions brought up there. - TaxmanTalk 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified who made the goal. It was the superintendent of ENP. As for the $35k, the document I took the information from listed all the national parks in a table. I don't know what they consider "local economy". I imagine that means the economies of Everglades City, Florida City, and Homestead - all very small towns. Although the park is close to Miami and Naples, I don't know if they considered them as well. If you, as your username implies, are into accounting, I can give you the URL for the pdf that I got that information from. I'm not a whiz at accounting, so it could mean something different. Thanks again for your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, send the link, either here or email is fine; I'm sure you're right though. On that goal, that is such a larger number than the ones that preceded it (100,000 for fees etc) that those all need more context on how they're different/related, etc. - TaxmanTalk 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you go here and click on "NPS System Report for 2006" it's a document that goes into the general revenue for each national park. I took the information that's in the article from the first table in that document. --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hmm. As I look at the document again, those numbers should be multiplied by 000, I think. That number should be $35,000,000 shouldn't it? This is why I am not an accounting whiz... --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, well, easy fix. :) Does the strategic guide give more information on the current number that compares with the $161 million goal? That's the part thats odd to me. I assume most of the difference is government funding, but that still leaves out the current info, which would be better than the goal. - TaxmanTalk 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the table points out - and I realize I need to make this clearer - that the income generated within the park is not from entrance fees, but tram tours, fishing licenses, gifts, etc. I need to find how much overall income the park generated...or I'm just not reading that table right. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the result of an extensive co-operation by members of the cricket WikiProject. We're working towards a Featured Topic on The Invincibles, and Barnes was one of the most 'colourful' members of that team.
Listing the article for Peer Review with a view to gaining useful feedback before going to WP:FAC.
We're particularly interested to hear from people who know little or nothing about cricket. We appreciate that it's hard to comment on such an article - it's even harder to write it so that it meets the requirements of neither dumbing down, nor being completely obscure. Hopefully, we've pitched it about right (see, I can do baseball metaphors too) and you're not completely stumped. (Sorry, that's a cricket one). Particularly keen for you to find examples of unexplained or unwikilinked cricket jargon.
Also, please do check for the usual transgressions of MOS, citations missing or malformed, inconsistencies, typos etc.
Thanks so much. I think you'll find his story is interesting enough to reward you for the effort of reading the bio.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving toward version 1.0 it would be good to get this major article to featured article status. All comments welcome, thanks/wangi 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; I was alerted about this and did not have any time to see the article, but now I do.
I think "Council areas of Scotland" should be moved to the bottom.
"Scotland has over 790 islands, divided into four main groups..." - I find this quite suprising, myself. Perhaps a citation.
The climate sections (temperatures; "300 days of sunshine"; "In comparison, much of lowland Scotland receives less than 800 mm (31 inches) annually."; "Braemar experiences an average of 59 snow days per year, while coastal areas have an average of less than 10 days.") require citations.
++++Peirigill's suggestions++++
The first thing you will be told at FA review is that you need a thorough copy-edit. (You would be told this no matter what.) That said, here are some things to watch out for:
Basic grammatical errors.
"The Norman Conquest of England in 1066 initiated a chain of events which started to move the Kingdom of Scotland away from its originally Gaelic cultural orientation." "Original" refers to "orientation," not "Gaelic," so shouldn't this be "its original Gaelic cultural orientation"? I'm an American, so if the original version is accepted British usage, I'll defer.
"When her youngest son David I later succeeded, Scotland gained something of its own gradual 'Norman Conquest'." The period should go inside the quotation marks: "When her youngest son David I later succeeded, Scotland gained something of its own gradual 'Norman Conquest.'" Again, if this is simply a difference between my American and your British usage, I'll defer.
Snakes are sentences that are too long to be easily comprehended in a single pass. They are usually the result of trying to fit too many ideas into one sentence. You will likely be told that this is not "brilliant, even compelling" prose and violates FA requirement 2a. The best solution is to split each snake into two or three smaller sentences, without repeating words between sentences. Examples:
"The word Scot was borrowed from Latin and its use, to refer to Scotland, dates from at least the first half of the 10th century, when it first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a reference to the Land of the Gaels, analogous to the Latin Scotia."
Try "The word 'Scot' first appeared as a name for Scotland in the early tenth-century Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There the Latin term 'Scotia' was anglicized to refer to the Land of the Gaels." (This is just a suggestion, which may have distorted the facts, but it shows how to divide the sentence.)
"It is entirely possible that Scotland was inhabited in palaeolithic times, as southern Britain was, but repeated glaciations, which covered the entire land-mass of modern Scotland, have destroyed any evidence of human habitation before the mesolithic period."
Try "Repeated glaciations, which covered the entire land-mass of modern Scotland, have destroyed any evidence of human habitation before the mesolithic period. It is possible but unknown whether Scotland, like southern Britain, was inhabited in palaeolithic times." (The word "entirely" was redundant.)
"Scots law is the law of Scotland. It is a unique system with ancient roots and has a basis in Roman law, combining features of both uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law with medieval sources."
Try "Scots law is a unique system with ancient roots. Its combines features of uncodified Roman civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law based on medieval sources." (See below for why I eliminated the first sentence.)
"Its industrial decline following World War II was particularly acute, but in recent decades the country has enjoyed something of a cultural and economic renaissance, fuelled in part by a resurgent financial services and electronics sector (see Silicon Glen), the proceeds of North Sea oil and gas, and latterly the devolved Scottish Parliament, established by the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998."
Try "Scotland experienced an acute industrial decline following World War II. Only in recent decades has the country enjoyed a cultural and economic renaissance. Factors fuelling this recovery included a resurgent financial services and electronics sector (see Silicon Glen), the proceeds of North Sea oil and gas, and latterly the devolved Scottish Parliament, established by the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998."
Redundancy will be a problem:
"The word Scot was borrowed from Latin and its use, to refer to Scotland, dates from at least the first half of the 10th century, when it first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a reference to the Land of the Gaels, analogous to the Latin Scotia." You'll notice I avoided saying "Latin" twice in my suggested edit above.
"Scotland continues to constitute a separate jurisdiction in public international law and private international law." Just say "public and private international law" and link the word "public" to "public international law" by putting an extra set of brackets around [public international law|public].
"Scots law is the law of Scotland." You could say "The legal system of Scotland is called 'Scots law," or could you skip this unhelpful sentence entirely and move on with the rest of the paragraph: "Scots law is a unique system of jurisprudence with ancient roots."
"Groups of settlers began building the first permanent houses on Scottish soil around 9,500 years ago, and the first significant villages around 6,000 years ago."
Try "Settlers began building the first permanent houses on Scottish soil around 9,500 years ago. The first villages appeared around 6,000 years ago." (I trust that the people who built the first houses weren't the same ones who built the first villages.)
"The main political debate in Scotland tends to revolve around attitudes to the constitutional question."
Try "The main political debate in Scotland revolves around the constitutional question." (See below for concerns about "main" and "tends to" in this sentence.)
Weasel words are a problem unless backed by a source which confirms the uncertainty or ambiguity. The best solution is usually to remove the vague words. If important exceptions or qualifications exist, state them explicitly.
"It is entirely possible that Scotland was inhabited in palaeolithic times."
"It is believed that the first group(s) of hunter-gatherers arrived in Scotland around 11,000 years ago."
"Groups of settlers began building the first permanent houses on Scottish soil around 9,500 years ago, and the first significant villages around 6,000 years ago."
"In the following centuries, the Kingdom of the Scots expanded to something closer to modern Scotland."
"When her youngest son David I later succeeded, Scotland gained something of its own gradual 'Norman Conquest'."
"The main political debate in Scotland tends to revolve around attitudes to the constitutional question."
"The critical year was perhaps 1018, when Malcolm II defeated the Northumbrians at the Battle of Carham." Say something like "History took a critical turn in 1018, when..." (Also, "year" is generally considered a redundant word when you specify a date.)
"The names of these areas are sometimes still used as geographical descriptors." Just say "The names of these areas are still used as geographical descriptors."
Citations are needed for claims that are not common knowledge, especially assertions of uniqueness or importance, or you may be accused of POV:
"Scots law is also unique in that it allows three verdicts in criminal cases including the controversial 'not proven' verdict."
"Now that devolution has occurred, the main argument about Scotland's constitutional status is over whether the Scottish Parliament should accrue additional powers."
"The most famous site from this period is the well-preserved village of Skara Brae on the Mainland of Orkney."
"The main political debate in Scotland tends to revolve around attitudes to the constitutional question."
Pronouns with remote antecedents will earn you mockery in the FA review. This requirement can be particularly irritating, so do your best to eliminate the problem now. This happens when you use a pronoun like "it" that does not refer to the last stated noun. It may be absolutely clear from context what "it" refers to, but if it's not the most recent noun, you will be told you are violating 2a. Examples:
"Following the Scottish Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, Scotland became one of the commercial, intellectual and industrial powerhouses of Europe. Its industrial decline following World War II was particularly acute, but in recent decades the country has enjoyed something of a cultural and economic renaissance, fuelled in part by a resurgent financial services and electronics sector (see Silicon Glen), the proceeds of North Sea oil and gas, and latterly the devolved Scottish Parliament, established by the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998." You will be asked whether "its" refers to Scotland or Europe. See above for my suggested edit to divide the second sentence, which is a snake, into shorter sentences, to see how I avoided the pronominal problem.
Go through the article thoroughly looking for these. Stop at every pronoun and determine whether its meaning could even possibly be misinterpreted.
Per WP:CAPTION, some FA reviewers prefer that all captions be complete grammatical sentences. Take advantage of this requirement so that your pictures reinforce and illustrate your article rather than just decorating it.
Instead of "Robert the Bruce," say say something like "Robert the Bruce's decisive victory over the English was a turning point in Scottish nationalism." Let the caption expand the article.
Instead of "A North Sea Oil Platform," say something like "Scotland's North Sea oil platforms tap into the largest oil reserves in the European Union."
Instead of "Scottish Ten Pound Notes," say something like "Scottish Ten Pound Notes honor such famous Scots as..."
Do this for all your captions.
Why is the image of Robert Burns in the Music section instead of the Literature section?
Per WP:MOS, section headers must not contain the name of the article.
"Scottish inventions" should be changed to "Inventions."
Check for comprehensiveness. Check with Scottish Wikipedians, and with Wikipedians who list some fluency in Scots or in Scots Gaelic in their userboxes. Look at other countries whose articles have FA status.
My main field is choral music, so I'm surprised to see that no mention of vocal music whatsoever appears in the Music subsection, although the heterophony of Gaelic psalm-singing in the Hebrides is quite notable. I'd like to see at least a mention of waulking songs, too.
Tha beagan Gàidhlig agam; I'd like to see some mention of the twentieth-century resurgence of Scots Gaelic literature in such poets as Somhairle MacGill-Eain and Deorsa mac Iain Deorsa, and attempts to restore and strengthen Scots Gaelic such as Sabhal Mòr Ostaig? Radio nan Gàidheal and Tele-G are mentioned, but only much later, in the Media section. I'd love to see a picture of a bilingual traffic sign, like Image:Sanas.jpg, in this section.
Where is Scotland's greatest philosopher? Where is Hume?
Scotland's contributions to science is really far too cursory. Where are Napier, Watt, and Maxwell? A passing reference to electromagnetics and radar really seems insufficient when we're talking about people whose names are famous.
Watch out for lists and miscellaneous information. Convert them to prose unless it would severely impair comprehension.
"Currently there are six cities in Scotland:" does it really improve comprehension to bulletpoint them? Why not just say, "Currently there are six cities in Scotland: Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, and Stirling."
"Scotland has 13 universities and one university college, including the four ancient universities founded in the medieval period:" does this short list really help?
The National symbols section seems very disjointed, almost like a trivia section. This will pose a problem at FA review. Can this section be converted to prose, and perhaps reorganized to flow more easily? William Wallace really sticks out between unicorns and thistles (and frankly, I'd have expected Robert the Bruce sooner than Wallace.)
The lede should be an abstract of the article, summarizing its most important information. My rule of thumb is that if something is important enough to merit a section header, it should be mentioned in the lede. Etymology, Subdivisions, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Education, Culture... none of these are even mentioned in the lede. In some cases, like Culture, I would suggest adding some mention in the lede. In others, like Etymology, I question whether the information merits its own section. Etymology could easily be subsumed under history, when you discuss the Gaels and Picts.
Conversely, the lede should not contain information that doesn't appear in the main article. I don't see the HMNB Clyde or the Trident ICBM system mentioned anywhere in the article. (Is the military mentioned at all? That might merit its own subsection.)
The lede should summarize and not go into undue detail. There's a lot of detail in the paragraph on the HMNB Clyde. Even "1 May 1707" could simply be "1707," with the precise date given in the main article.
The gallery may be a problem. Ideally, there would be no gallery because every imoprtant image is in use illustrating your article.
Why not put the clàrsach picture in the Music section?
Why not have Hadrian's Wall and Sueno's Stone in the First Millenium section?
Why not put the Isle of Lewis in the Geography section (or the Language section, with a caption saying "The Isle of Lewis is home to x% of the Gaidhealtachd, or Gaelic-speaking population"?
I can't spare the time to do a thorough copy-edit myself (see the peer review for Concerto delle donne to see how involved that gets. You'll recognize my contributions quickly, because all the stricken sections are mine.) But hopefully these suggestions will help you polish before you get to FA review. Peirigill 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
An afterthought: regarding comprehensiveness in music coverage, what about the Scottish folk song tradition? You mention its influence on American country music, but what about mentioning particularly famous songs like "Loch Lomond" and "Auld Lang Syne"? Peirigill 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs inline citations if it is to have any chance of being FA. It also needs a little more balance;e.g. there is simply too much about sport, compared with, say, literature; the literature section should mention some Gaelic authors, as these are of particular Scotland-based interest. A Miscellaneous section is needed, "Inventions" for instance has no place under "Economy" section. The history section is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings, and is imbalanced. I may at least give this article a go again and fix the history section. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second the concern with the placement of the Inventions subsection. I must disagree with Calgacus' recommendation of a "Miscellaneous" section of any kind; miscellany and trivia sections will not meet with approval at FA. Peirigill 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more observations on the article follow. There is only one detailed map of Scotland (plus the locator maps in the infobox), and it does not show Stirling (one of the 6 cities), let alone many of the other places mentioned. More dates would help. Dates given in the Early Scotland section jump from "6000 years ago" to 832, while the Medieval Scotland section dates jump from 1066 to 1306, then at the end from 1370 to 1707 to (next section) 1603. I found the whole Maid of Norway section confusing. Perhaps a clearer introduction like "A succession crisis arose when the Maid of Norway, last direct heir of Alexander III of Scotland, died in 1290. Scotland's nobility asked Edward I, King of England..." would work. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 02:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZt 01:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Long way to go. Terribly long article, needs a summary, too many distracting templates/galleries within the prose, long ToC. Try and model Scotland as per the sections recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Regards, =Nichalp«Talk»= 09:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending to put it forward as an FA candidate. The current version has been pretty stable since it passed GA in August. I undertook the auto peer review prior to that time. There are various b&w images I'd like to include which date from the inhabited period in the 19th century. However UK copyright being such a minefield, it has proven hard to be certain they can be used. I am still looking into this.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice article. I will make some more comments later, but a quick read through shows a couple of quick fixes that need to be made before FAC. 1) The first locator map is only 150 pixels wide and is difficult to read at that width - the box looks to be close to 300 pixels wide (on my monitor anyway), so the map could be much wider and clearer 2) The units are inconsistent, presumably in Scotland metric units should be first throughout, but several places have distances in miles only. Units should also be in the format 10 kilometre (6 mi) (i.e. full name (abbrev)) 3) The images are good and generally well placed, but are almost all right justified. This leads to some white space on my monitor, perhaps some left justified images could help here. I ran the PR script to fix the non-breaking space issue and a few other small issues. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - many thanks. I'll drop a note back here when I've gone through these items. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very comprehensive article! You might think about putting the references into standard format (see WP:CITET). ISBNs (for those books that have them) in particular would be a great addition! MeegsC | Talk 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. In fact in a previous FA candidature I was asked to remove the templates as they did not (in the opinion of the reviewer) correspond to WP:MOS! I'd be happy to look up a few more ISBNs - although just out of curiosity I have never been sure what their purpose on Wikipedia is - is it not just as easy to look a book up on Amazon these days? Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. But if you click on an ISBN on Wikipedia, it takes you right to the book (after a single stop at a Wikipedia page, where you can indicate where you'd like to look), so you don't have to type in a thing! : ) MeegsC | Talk 23:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some final thoughts. The ISBN templates here also allow users to look the book up in a variety of libraries. I would make the locator map in the infobox wider still (it is 200 px now, and looks as if 250 px would still fit in the box). There are some fairly obscure terms that could be wikilinked or explained, such as Anchorite or the first occurrence of Taigh an t-Sithiche (say it means house of the faeries?). The terms "cleitan" and "cleit" are each used once before the definition of cleitan is given. What is a boat cough? Could any of these be wikilinked: "Scheduled Ancient Monument, a National Scenic Area, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and a European Community Special Protection Area"? In the "Prehistoric buildings" section, would it help to mention again where Gleann Mòr is? The Media and the Arts section has several one sentence paragraphs - could these be combined into fewer, larger paragraphs? Finally, per WP:LEAD the lead paragraphs should summarize the whole article, and I always try to somehow mention at least all the section headers and subheaders. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I changed the article units to consitently spell out the name of first units, but per WP:MOS#Conversions, "The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." I am OK with switching back, as long as it is consistent. Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully now done, inc. available ISBNs, save for the lead. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all concerns have been addressed - great job! Ruhrfisch><>°° 02:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help everyone. I have been watching Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shapinsay and note the various concerns raised. I will have another look at the Etymology section and see if I can figure out where the italics should go - then it's into the breach. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of minor things.
It seems like the "general references" subsection could be merged into "further reading".
The difference is that the general refs are those that are referred to frequently in the footnotes whereas the 'further reading' list are not cited. Nonetheless you remind me that Featured Lists use this method but that someone may grumble at FAC.
What does the word "corn", used twice, refer to here? Oats? It would be better to clarify, if possible (most Americans will assume you are talking about maize, which seems unlikely in St. Kilda's climate). Lesgles (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I removed the first one as its superflous, but in GB English 'corn' is a useful word meaning 'wheat, oats or barley'. I notice there isn't even a dab page on Wikipedia, which is shade frustrating. 'Corn' is what the source says - it seems a bit supine to remove it. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong there is a dab page - its just not listed at the top of Corn. I'll put in a link to the former. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (I would still merge the references). I was mostly confused by the first one, because it said "barley and corn". (Incidentally, corn is a mess! There seem to be two pages, corn and maize, which link to the same talk page.) Lesgles (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll deal with the refs asap. Yes - at first I wondered if my eyesight might be failing on the corn/maize front. A shade peculiar. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 12:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently created, copyedited and improved the article and believe that the article may be ready for WP:GAN. Before nominating the article for Good Article status, I have listed the article for a peer review. Please review the article thoroughly and inform me of any errors, typos, and guidelines I had not followed in the article.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, add images to the article.TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a date that you mean to wikilink but didnt. I think its in the background section "[2006]]".TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BOLD about that. It takes you more time to write the sentence of the whole suggestion down here, than it does to add a bracket in the article. Feedback☎04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well my bad, didnt want to interfere in your article. But I see what you mean. Sorry.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hit you with a couple of quick comments right now, more to come. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You rely too much on one source wwe.com, it's made worse by the fact that it's a primary source as well it would help it's chances of becoming GA if you get more varied sources than you have right now.
I sourced everything with WWE.com, because nothing in the article was objective. The article is completely subjective, and mostly about feud-growths, and match results. How can any of this be sourced outside wwe.com? Feedback☎03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead reveals the result of the Cena/Umaga match but not the other matches - consistency please, either all results or no result in the lead.
I was told to only reveal the result of the main event in the lead. I personally don't like spoiling the result until the Event section, but that's what I was advised to do as other PPV articles. So, I am going to need more opinions on this particular point. Feedback☎03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tenses, it switches between past and present tense in places you should go through it and check it for consistency.
The "Event" section contains a lot of very short paragraphs, ít doesn't look good - either expand the paragraphs or consider putting a couple of the low card matches in the same paragraph. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneI have joined the promos and matches into the same paragraph, while joining the last two matches also together. Feedback☎03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some comments:
Citations should not go in the middle of a sentence. Also, there are a couple of places where the citations are located before the punctuation. These should be moved behind the punctuation, including periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, etc.
Done
You missed one, but I fixed it. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is more than one citation for a sentence, they should be placed in numerical order. Also, there should not be a space between them or between the source and punctuation mark.
Done
You didn't take the spaces out, but I fixed that, too. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are from WWE.com, which isn't going to fly if you want the article to be a GA or FA. You need to find some non-primary sources to add to the article.
There is an internal link to WWE.com that should be removed. Websites should not be linked in the text.
Done I removed this for you. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's possible, but you might want to try and combine some of the paragraphs in both the Event and Aftermath sections. A paragraph that is two or three sentences long is a no-no.
Check some of the wrestlers' articles for some free-use images you can add. Images break up the text and enliven it.
Done
Good job. Much better. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure the titles for SmackDown! and Raw are in italics. Pay-per-view names are not supposed to be in italics, but television shows are.
Done All mentions to the TV Show have been put in italics. The only one not italicized is the mention of Raw in the lead, which is about the brand.
You missed a couple, so I tried to go in and fix it. Check over one more time to make sure I didn't miss any that you missed. lol. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, copyedit the article. There are a couple of instances where a word or punctuation mark is missing. For example, "Regardless these two losses, at the end of the night, Cena stood tall" should be "Regardless of these two losses, at the end of the night, Cena stood tall." Also, "Next, Kenny Dykstra made his way to the ring, mocking Ric Flair wearing one of Flair's common robes" should be "Next, Kenny Dykstra made his way to the ring, mocking Ric Flair by wearing one of Flair's common robes." Fix these two sentences (I would have done it, but then I wouldn't have examples to give) and check to make sure this doesn't happen elsewhere in the article.
Done
I know it is hard to copy-edit your own article since you've been looking at it for so long. I went in and fixed a lot of stuff you missed. The difference is here. Things to avoid 1) Don't start sentences with "and" or "however" 2) Avoid contractions such as "can't" or "doesn't" 3) You formatted some of the citations improperly. I fixed them. Make sure you look to see how I did it and understand the correct format 4) There were a few misspelled words
Back to the picture issue, there is a free-use picture of Flair in one of the robes that might be good to use here. A non-wrestling fan wouldn't know what one looked like.
Done
That makes that sentence much clearer. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check back to see how you are doing. Nikki311 15:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I forgot, but I've been so busy with other things. In case you missed where I said it above, I have copy-edited the article for you. The difference is here. It is in your best interest to look over the changes I made so you don't make the same mistakes in the future. The article is looking much better, by the way. Nikki311 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm renominating this article for PR because it just passed as a good article and I think with just some minor improvements, this time it can be ready for an FAC. And this time I want actual users offering suggestions on improvement. Thanks! (SUDUSER)85 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the success of Hybrid Theory, Linkin Park received invitations to perform at various prominent rock concerts and tours, including Ozzfest, the Family Values Tour, KROQ's Almost Acoustic Christmas, and the band's self-created tour, Projekt Revolution, which was headlined by Linkin Park and featured other bands such as Cypress Hill and Adema.[3][5]" - The word "prominent" is speculation on the writer's behalf, and needs to be taken out. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done You're right about that point. Is there anything else you'd like to scrutinize? (You can always give the article a full, thorough review; Be my guest!) (SUDUSER)85 14:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Although it did not become a single, another significant song from the album is “Points of Authority.”" - "Significant" is also speculation's on the writer's behalf. If you want a really in depth review, request the feedback of M3tal H3ad, Cricket02, CloudNine, 17Drew, Ceoil and WesleyDodds. If at least half of them review the article, you should be well away towards FAC. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ok I'll leave a message for those users you suggested. Thanks for your recommendations! (SUDUSER)85 05:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated the latter as a reference to the fact about the album being the best-seller of 2001. I notice it has a review of the album, but it's more like an overview of the band and I don't think that's really necessary. (SUDUSER)85 16:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just for the record, I fixed all sentences containing speculations that were addressed by LuciferMorgan. If there's anything I seem to have missed, just highlight the sentences below and I, or someone else, will fix it. Other than that, are there any other sentences at all that need rephrasing or anything? (SUDUSER)85 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The quotemarks around song titles should be ordinary quotemarks (i.e. ' " '). I'll review this article in more detail soon. CloudNine (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done normal quotes have been added. (SUDUSER)85 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done All issues addressed by the automated review have been addressed. (SUDUSER)85 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since its release, Hybrid Theory has been certified diamond by the RIAA, and to date has sold 24 million copies worldwide, making it
...and to date has sold... What date? This could yesterday, or tomorrow or next month when someone reads it. I would clarify....like, as of December 2007.... (or whenever), and update as needed in time.
Background:
A bit too many wikilinks of ordinary terms. Also, why does "MC" for Mike Shinoda redirect to rapping? And why does "music ensemble" (band I assume) redirect to "arrangement"? I understand "arrangement" to be a Musical arrangement. I'm not saying its wrong, just don't understand the reasoning and please excuse my ignorance if this is all correct. Maybe it's just terminology I'm not familiar with, like I've never heard of an ensemble being called an arrangement before. Just need a little clarity there.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this a Feautred Article, yet I know I have a ways to go with it yet. Any help is appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting, I'd like at least one non-automated look. Wizardman 14:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Wizardman, you've got your wish. :) I read the whole article. Its rating as a Good Article is well-earned. I learned some things about Nathan that I didn't know from just reading the baseball pages in the Boston Globe or New York Times. I especially enjoyed the trivia that he replaced Barry Bonds on the Giants roster. In all seriousness, there's no serious flaw with the article. It's not missing any information that needs to be there. The only issue I might have is that it's a little more prosaic and boring than your typical featured article. If you could track down one of those Sunday-morning type long interviews to shine a light onto this guy's personality, that might make for a more interesting reading experience. Otherwise, the best way to evaluate its readiness for FA is to try FA and see why people say no. Oh, and for guidance, you can look at Lee Smith (baseball player), which is featured. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:CITE and improve the references - each should give the source, publication date, and author. (by Jimmy The Greek, Sports Illustrated, May 1996.)
wikilink Division III to explain it to people who don't know why it's a big deal that "only div iii colleges showed interest"
Similarly wikilink, rephrase, or explain (probably wikilink, because that allows readers who don't know to look it up, while doesn't get in the way of readers who do know): Academic All-American, Bellingham Giants, what it means to have your number retired, shutout inning, major-league decision, reliever, closer, American League Co-Player of the Week, Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Month, MVP, ERA, and similar baseball jargon
"This transition came with marriage as well" - eww. You're implying his marriage was strongly tied to his promotion; either back that up with a source that specifically says that, or rephrase. In fact, I'd break the family life into a separate section, unless, again you can show that his family life is strongly tied to his career. "With the end of the first season came the birth of his first son, Cole," ... eww. I can just imagine it now: "And you, son, came at the end of my first season. I value you just almost as much as that third trophy on the left there - don't get smudges on it!"
Give some text feedback: words rather than just numbers. What do sports writers say about him? What makes him impressive besides just stats? Does he throw fastballs, curves, sliders, spitters? Does he know when to walk, when to try for strikeout? Is he particularly good at shutting down power hitters, or does he tend to serve them up homers occasionally? You've got some terms there that could use more verbiage - what makes him a "saves leader", a "delivery man"? Is he consistent, erratic, flamboyant, conservative, reliable? What does he do outside the game, does he have any interests in activism, politics, charities, hobbies? --AnonEMouse(squeak) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll modify the article based on the latest comments, I don't see any I disagree with doing. Wizardman 20:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review mostly because I'm not sure which improvements can be made to get it to FAC. I'm pretty sure it is factually accurate, as the sources used satisfy WP:RS easily, so my questions are more about organization and depth. What would be useful to improve the page?
I'd like to see a bit more history. For example, this link says that the scale was first used in 1973. I'm also concerned at the inclusion of the pop culture section, particularly since it only deals with two movies on, IMO, ridiculous matters hardly relevant to the article. Just a quick question - is there a standardization to the example storms? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the pop culture stuff, and about the history. I'll look more into that today. The storms are storms that reached a particular category at peak intensity, and that made landfall while still in that category. For example, having a storm that reached Category 5, but made landfall as only a Category 3 would be confusing. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... as a complete weather dummie, I have no idea what this means.
The definition of sustained winds recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and used by most weather agencies is that of a 10-minute average at a height of 10 m (33 ft).
Why most? Do some others use something else? But more ...
Where does height come in? How do you measure height of wind? <grin> Does this mean measured *from* that height as opposed to on the ground? Does the sentence mean something like:
Most weather agencies use the definition for sustained winds recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), measured at a height of 10 m (33 ft) for an average of 10 minutes.
I'm so confused at what the sentence is saying that I don't know how to fix it: is that it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading ahead, now I get it and I see the problem. You need to tell weather dummies first (before you start talking about each) that there are three factors in determining storm categories: sustained winds, storm surge and central pressure. Then go on to tell us how each is measured instead of diving in first to those. That is, move up the sentence
The five categories are, in order of increasing intensity:
to earlier in the paragraph, and say something like, there are five categories of hurricanes, defined by sustained winds, storm surge and central pressure. Then go on to the part about how they are measured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The definition isn't measured, the wind is ;) Anyway, the following sentence says the USWS measures on a 1-minute scale rather than a 10-minute scale. "Most weather agencies follow the WMO recommendation and measure sustained wind from a height of 10 m (33 ft) over a 10-minute average. The USWS measures sustained wind over a 1-minute average." ? Gimmetrow 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the United States is the only country that measures peak wind speeds by measuring the intensity of the wind for 1 minute, then taking the average. Everywhere else uses 10-minute averages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done; I did all my queries inline, but it's very nice! Revert anything stupid I've done, but and/or is usually problematic because or covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick questions:
About loss of life. A Category 1 hurricane, Stan, was blamed for 2000 deaths, while a Category 5, Dean, caused about 40, because of the location and speed at which they made landfall. So, how would I treat that?
Actually, I had forgotten that it does talk a little bit about that in the History section... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some stuff about the history of the scale to the first paragraph of SSHS#History. Is that one ok? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; mine were the queries of the uninformed :-) Feel free to remove my inline queries that make no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see:
I don't like the way the boxes in the Categories section are of different widths.
The lead might be expanded. Mention the lowest and highest values on the scale, for instance. You might also have a single sentence summarizing the criticism section.
In Popular culture could probably go—trivia.
Otherwise, it seems quite good. If it were at FAC the prose might be more closely scrutinized. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not easy, but I'll see what I can do.
Will work on it (there's no maximum value, though).
Since you're the second person to say that, I'll nuke it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A check on whether it renders correctly in different browsers might be nice. I only tested in Firefox/Safari for the Mac. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
s added throughout, except in section titles, where they cause weird side effects. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must have gnashed your teeth aligning those category tables but it looks much nicer now. Lead is also good. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting feedback especially from anyone who participated in the FLCs of List of Claymore chapters and the Narutochapterlists. In trying to follow those best practices, we've had to adapt the format quite a bit: for example, Yotsuba&! volumes don't have titles nor a summarizable continuing plot, and there's other information there's no space for, such as the date a chapter takes place. Any insight from those who've been through the process and can identify what's essential to getting a list of manga chapters to FL greatly appreciated. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I fulfill your request since I wrote a big chunk of those and nominated all four :p. As for the table, I think the same table can be used, just change the fields at the top to reflect your adaptations. If volume number and dates are all that you have, then that's all that you have. Furthermore, it makes the table looks continuous over the page, which looks better. I don't like the story date field, as it's just an in-universe detail, and a reviewer at WP:FLC would likely ask for it to be removed. The images should be removed per fair use concerns. Place a collection box (here) or the first volume of the manga (here) in the lead. As for the lead, try to expand it a bit, following the style of List of Naruto chapters (Part I) or List of Naruto chapters (Part II). Nice work though. A good push and it can get FL status without much incident. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 22:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for plot summaries, how can it not be summarized? Even if it isn't continuous, you can still summarize the individual chapters as a whole fairly effectively, using a sentence or two for each. It will be a bit long, but you can explain your rationale in that you're discussing all the chapters, as you have no continuous plot to work off. One of the complaints raised at the FLCs for the aforementioned chapter lists was initially the lack of plot summaries, and I can see it being raised again in this case. As for when the chapter takes place, it was decided that such data was ultimately unnecessary and did not need to be included. Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick -- thankee. Gotcha about the covers; up to the lead goes volume 1. And I'll see what I can do about a sentence per chapter. For the volume titles, what do you suggest mechanically? Omitting those cells entirely or always filling them with a em-dash? --and if the former, what do with the space?
For the dates, though, I'm gonna get resistant. For one thing, it's not just an "in-universe detail" -- the slow pace of daily life as a five-year-old, and that chapters take place on successive or near-successive days, is mentioned in reviews. Not to mention is part of the ancillary material from the publisher. This is a slice-of-daily-life series set in a specific time and place, following the rhythm of the weeks and seasons. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another question: how essential is that cover character thing anyway? Because for this, it's all Yotsuba, all the time. Not exactly a distinguishing feature of the volumes. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Omit the cells entirely. No need for a field you never use. As for the dates, it only becomes relevant if it provide the reader with a better context of the chapter they are reading. In this case, it doesn't, and unless it's important to the plot of that episode (special holiday or something), then it shouldn't be included. It will likely be shot down as indiscriminate information in a FLC nomination. Ergo, if the relevancy is present, include it in the plot summary. If not, exclude it. As for the cover character, you can exclude it so long as a mention is made in the lead or somewhere else that Yotsuba is present on all the covers. Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a sample of swotting this up in the sandbox -- how would this work for handling the ISBNs? (Frankly, I don't like the separation of ISBN and pub date in the current examples -- coming from the industry, they're rather tied together in my mind and ought to be handled with similar formatting.) Still thinking about the date thing, since it really is part of the context for the reader. I take the article's lead isn't enough to explain why they're included? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be better off with the dates removed. The biggest problem is that it gives the impression that those dates relate to the date the chapter came out rather than the in-universe date, and it is confusing to a reader, even if they read a notice in the lead. As for the table, it looks fine. Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°° 19:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "This allows the appearance of products created after 2003, such as the Nintendo DS Mr. Ayase plays in chapter 42." is too specific and should be removed. Fg2 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was told, though I cannot find the talk page at the moment, that that detail is from the interview mentioned immediately before. I'll find someone who knows Japanese to either confirm or deny it -- because if so, the reference ought to move to the end of the paragraph, and if not, then yeah, that's unsourced speculation and needs to go. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article on Sarah Trimmer's eighteenth-century journal for reviewing children's books has recently passed GA. I do not believe that it is appropriate material for FA (there is not enough published scholarship to merit a "comprehensive" claim), but I do want to make sure that the article is as good as it can be, so I am soliciting reviews of it. Please comment on accessibility and prose, in particular. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 10:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I hosed it up with a boatload of comments... for my two cents, the writing style is a bit subtle and the vocabulary perhaps a bit highbrow-ish, considering that hordes of people will be reading it. Maybe that's OK; I can name two or three Wikipedians who would love it ;-) I saw dashes that looked like ndashes but I thought should have been ems; I really need to commit WP:MOS to memory. Still needs more wikilinking. Is this perhaps relevant to Educational perennialism? As i was reading, all the author's fears of liberal hordes etc. made me wonder if that was a period of instability in British history.. That's all for now; maybe I'll lookk at it again in a week or so. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See responses to comments in article.
Could you point to examples of the subtle writing? It's too subtle for me to see...:)
I have no idea what the "high-browish" vocabulary is - I looked through the article again and again and I couldn't even find examples of what you might call SAT words. The harder words are all in the quotations - I have dumbed down my vocabulary here deliberately and I'm not really sure that I need to do so anymore. I don't think that hordes of readers are going to be reading this - those who make it to this rather obscure corner of wikipedia are going to be able to follow these words, I'm pretty sure. If they can't, they probably can't follow the ideas either.
I'm a conservative wikilinker - I link only high-value links.
I fixed the dashes - except for those in the page ranges. Someone can run a bot if they care to.
I've never heard the term Educational perennialism used in connection with Trimmer, unfortunately.
Yes - the 1790s and 1800s was a great period of instability in British history. War, near revolution, and all. I'm also working on the 1794 Treason Trials which is about the same period. :) Awadewit | talk 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that many of the key concepts are based in an understanding of the history of Western culture. I added several wikilinks for this reason... if there are no relevant articles to be linked to for some of the more abstract concepts, then... even a well-educated reader may confuse the terms with their modern counterparts...
I agree that the article assumes one has a grounding in the history of Western culture. However, I think that an article on the first journal to review children's literature in Britain can do that. The readers who will be looking at this article will more than likely have that background. If they do not, they will not understand it at all, I'm afraid. It is difficult to know what level to aim at, but as WP:BETTER#Provide context for the reader explains, we assume different readerships for different articles. For example, I would assume that the History of Britain article would not assume a familiarity with Western culture, while this article, because of its specialized nature, can. The only reason I deleted some of the wikilinks is precisely because they linked to modern explanations. :) Awadewit | talk 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re "subtle": I have been in relationship-preventing arguments with other Wikipedia editors over extremely similar issues. I cannot seem to port the experience I have in placing myself in the shoes of readers who are impervious to the delicate wiles of advanced vocabulary (and the riches of shades of meaning they proffer) to other people. Forex, the paragraph about conspiricies: the whole mental construct hangs on the single signal word "argued," which signals to the reader that all that follows is from Trimmer's POV. But heck, maybe she was just arguing with someone, eh? She was fighting those darn liberals, wasn't she? Don't you argue when you fight? The word "intended" too takes on a new meaning if "argued" is misconstrued in that manner... uh... if you wanna get into my head, try reading "My Trouble is my English" by Danling Fu (sp.?). The editors I alluded to earlier would guffaw at these remarks; I'm hoping you won't. :-)
The thing is, if a reader cannot understand what "Trimmer argued" and "Trimmer intended" means, they have much more serious reading comprehension problems than we can address here. You know I teach composition at the college level - I have seen these comprehension problems. If a reader cannot grasp these basic issues, we can only do so much - I have indicated the intention and POV for every single sentence. That is actually overkill, but I was trying to be as clear as possible. I'm not really sure how you would want this to be written - too much explanation actually becomes wordy and confusing. Awadewit | talk 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the turmoil you mentioned should be mentioned in the article. this requires the addition of only one or at most two sentences.
I'm trying to find a good place for it. I assumed the references to the French Revolution did this, but I guess not. Awadewit | talk 04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bye for now — my better half just called & let the phone ring once, hung up, then let it ring again.. so I need to go home.. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent).
OK. :-) I guess the underlying point of some of my stuff above was simply that I think the POV-shift in the article is unnecessary... POV-shift is a literary device; I'm not sure it is the best tool for presnting information within an encyclopedia article. As for "highbrow", well, I should have known better; I should have chosen a word that doesn't have some faint negative connotations. Many of the words are very low-frequency, e.g. "praxis." Yes it's relatively more frequent in education literature (my second grad degree was in the area of education). Yes I recall that you mentioned there's some WP:MOS rule about not wikilinking within a direct quote (?). If such a rule exists, then it is a good example of a rule that deserves to be ignored. Think of it as a small but meaningful example of WP:IAR if you like. To paraphrase Mark 2:27 (you'll recall I'm teaching Bible lit ;-) ) "Wikipedia was not made for WP:MOS, but WP:MOS for Wikipedia." Reader-centered comprehensibility always trumps writer-centered rules, regardless of the latter's rationalization(s).
I guess I don't really see the shifts - it is all third-person reporting, if you know what I mean. The article doesn't speak in Trimmer's voice (that would be very literary).
"Praxis" is a more sophisticated word, but it is in a quote that I feel is necessary. I feel very uncomfortable linking words that are not proper nouns in quotations. To me it really is interpretation. I would fight such linking even without the MOS rule, as I see it as an alteration of the quotation. As a literary scholar, it makes me nervous when people start altering and interpreting quotations like that. I do ignore that rule when names and places need to be elucidated, but that is about as far as my faint heart will go. :)
But I'm done yammering now. I dunno if I have anything else to say... I'm absolutely certain this article will rec'v a well-deserved FA in a relatively short while. It just needs a trivial amount of shining up. :-) Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not taking it to FAC - see peer review statement above. I don't think it can be FA, do you? (Thanks for the careful review!) Awadewit | talk 11:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I really don't know how the FAC regulars interpret "comprehensive". To me it is comprehensive because I can't imagine any more being written about this particular topic.. plus it is extremly good even if (in my opinion...) a bit too difficult in vocab and sentence structure... but I am an utter FAC newbie.. I think my comments today on John Knox were my first ever on a FAC that was not my own. Sorry if I sounded snippy or snobbish or anything negative. My evil alternate personality emerges when I express my inner self. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting article about a little-known "first" (though I can say, smugly, that as a reader of the Sarah Trimmer article, I was aware of this, thanks to the same editor). The article is cutting-edge, in its way, because it is one thing for feminist scholars to haul their spiritual ancestors into the light, but another to unearth conservative female figures and polish them up with the same loving care.
The article is very well written from sentence to sentence, but I think Ling Nut has a point—not so much, in my opinion, that the words are too long, or whatever, but that the prose reads a little heavily at times. In my opinion this is down to a reliance, in places, on too many sentences, one after another, of a similar length and cadence. An example would be the paragraph beginning "Late in life...", in my opinion. A short sentence or two would provide variety, I think, and renew the impetus. I know that you read articles out aloud while editing (I do too), and perhaps another run-through might throw up places where the prose could do with a little more spring in its step. (This is a downright finicky thing for me to say, I admit, but there's little in the article to criticise, so I am perhaps grasping at a straw).
Ok. ok. I'm working on this. :) Awadewit | talk 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised, but I'm not sure it is really any better. Awadewit | talk 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmer undertook no small task in publishing her periodical. Is the (jejune) litotes necessary? Rather a weak opening to a paragraph, possibly.
"a challenging task" Awadewit | talk 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Hemingwayesque. qp10qp (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a high-church Anglican, she was intent on protecting Christianity from secularism as well as evangelicalism, particularly as it manifested itself in Methodism. Something about this somewhat over-ismed sentence leaves me unclear about what manifested itself in Methodism. I was going to copyedit to "as the latter" but could not be certain I was reading this as intended.
"the latter" is now included Awadewit | talk 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Some Account of the Life and Writings of Mrs. Trimmer. I tend to add something like "Full view available at Google Books" for Google Books links like that, just to give the readers an idea of where they are going when they click.
"I will only say, that the more I reflect on the subject, the more I am convinced that it is not right to supersede the figurative style in which they speak of God and divine things, my opinion is, that whoever attempts to teach the truths of divine revelation, should follow the method of the inspired writers as nearly as possible" I found this difficult to get my head round; who are "they"? Not one of Mrs Trimmer's most inspired sentences, I venture. You introduce this after mentioning inerrancy rather than style, so for me the context isn't self-explanatory.
Attempted to explain: For Trimmer, the truth of the Bible was not only in its content, but also in its style, and some of her harshest reviews were written against texts that altered both the style and the substance of the Bible.Awadewit | talk 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that brings it into context nicely. qp10qp (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
caretakers: Did you know that in BE this has the meaning of "janitors"? We would say "carers" here. This isn't to insist on British vocabulary, of course, but just to tell you that this is one of those transpondian oddities.
I knew it wasn't just spelling. :) New sentence: Trimmer also maintained that mothers and fathers should share the responsibility of caring for the family.Awadewit | talk 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other notable children's authors reviewed in the Guardian include Wollstonecraft, Sarah Fielding, and Dorothy Kilner. This seemed to me rather tacked on to the end of its paragraph.
Sentence removed. Awadewit | talk 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you are. You are getting so good at this lark that I've had a struggle coming up with even this many nitpicks. It's neat that you've taken the trouble with this article, even though you don't intend to try for FA. The quest for quality comes through just the same, and I wouldn't have expected anything else. qp10qp (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to Featured Article status. Thanks -- Biochemza, 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lay reader. There's clearly a lot of work gone into this and loads of detail. Here are some impressions.
I found the rotating DNA to be distracting when reading the lead. We all know what DNA looks like. This is just eye-candy.
Most of the uses of quotes in the lead should be replaced IMO. The "vaccines of the future" should be replaced with a simple statement of fact (i.e, they aren't in-use yet but may become the dominant form). The "third generation" is either an accepted fact or else probably doesn't belong in the lead. I don't know why "whole organism" or "genetically engineered" are in quotes.
The "ability to induce a wide range of immune response types" doesn't strike me as an "advantage over conventional vaccines".
The "third generation" sentence doesn't fit with rest of the paragraph.
The "conventional vaccines, however" sentence, while true, seems to be trying to make a point wrt DNA vaccines. In fact, the whole lead is too much like a sales pitch.
The "First generation" paragraph quickly enters expert-reader territory. The lead has to be accessible to all.
The "second generation" vaccines don't "overcome these drawbacks" as they have the same disadvantage as killed vaccines. The text doesn't really explain why these are better than killed vaccines. It isn't clear to me what the "third generation" are able to do in comparison to the immune responses you mention.
By the last paragraph, you've completely lost me. I don't understand any of the sentences.
The final sentence mentions a naming issue that you has was resolved in 1994. Old news. Not really important for the lead. This also implies that people have been researching these for over 10 years. That's a long time.
The smallpox vaccine kit image is not relevant to this article IMO.
The "Advantages and Disadvantages" table is an ugly way to start an article.
The "Current use" section should probably be moved to the lead. Let's not fool the reader into thinking this is a current form of vaccination.
I recommend you don't supply the URL parameter for journal articles where the article (not just the abstract) is not freely available online. Where one does link, my preference is not to bother with the "access date" since unlike most web-pages, journal articles don't change once they go to print. Also, you should supply a DOI or a PMID, which will aid anyone with subscribed journal access to read it.
I haven't read the rest in detail, only skimmed. This is a shame since it is probably a fascinating and exciting area of research. The technical level is more Nature than New Scientist. Wikipedia is for the general reader, and I fear that means you've got quite a challenging task to explain this in simpler terms. It will also mean that some esoteric material has to go.
I've listed this article for peer review because writing has proven harder than I expected. It's my first article on a manga series so I had absolutely no frame of reference. Besides the usual pointers, I'd like to know if there's anything lacking and if it's good enough. Thanks, Nohansen (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. :) I have some things to say and it'll probably come over as pretty aggressive, so don't take it too personally. It's in the nature of peer reviews that they hurt the main contributors badly. :) Also, everything which follows is my personal opinion even if I don't specify it. :)
Lead.
Too many paragraphs. Three is the absolute maximum IMO but in this case, just two would be enough: first three can be merged together without much information loss and so can the last two.
There are no inline quotations in the lead, which is a bit ambiguous: on one hand, it unloads the section greatly, yet on the other, it makes one nervous about whether the statements are sourced or not.
Plot.
It is just a brief introduction, a synopsis. One'd expect a complete brief summary of manga storyline from a good article. Plot differences in television series and movie could be then covered in the respective sections. Oh, and the plot summary should be at least superficially OOU.
Characters.
I'd add the names of all Dragons (at least, in their original allegiances) to the respective sections, just for the sake of completeness. Plus, of course, links to their respective sections in the characters list.
Publication.
The reason why the title was changed to X/1999 appears unsourced. Overall, it might be a good idea for someone to go over an article and post {{fact}}s wherever needed. I could do that but I require your consent.
Adaptations.
See my comments on the plot.
Design.
"Clamp's X defies convention" is too strong a statement. It definitely needs to be mildered down a bit. "According to critics, Clamp's..." Or someting like that.
Too brassy: "ladies of Clamp", "childhood sweetheart", "to tell the tale", "walk their path" (overall, that whole paragraph violates the encyclopedic tone guidelines heavily).
"The ensemble cast, inspired on Takizawa Okikuni's Nansō Satomi Hakkenden" Source?
The whole duality discussion in Motifs can be merged in a single paragraph. As can the dreaming and the fate parts, respectively.
Media.
I'd place this section immediately after the Adaptations, because they describe similar things.
The images appear to be appropriately tagged and FUed except for the one in the infobox: is it really a logo rather than manga cover? :) --Koveras☭ 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been helpful, thank you. Like I said, this article has proven considerably harder to write than my other two, so any criticism is welcomed. I'll get to work in the next few of hours.
About the sources: Besides the naming issue with Dark Horse Comics (which I got from X's ANN entry) all is sourced with the CLAMP interviews. The line about Hakkenden comes from the interview in CLAMP no Kiseki 8. Since I already used that inline citation earlier in the paragraph, I though it'd look bloated if I used it again. Same with the lead; I normally don't cite the lead since it's a summary (of a well-referenced article).
If you want to tag some stuff as {{fact}}s is fine by me. I'll provide the citation.
And the infobox image it's neither a manga cover nor a logo. It's the TV series title screen. I'll fix that, too.--Nohansen 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMO it's better to place the citation at the end of the paragraph if it sources several statements: it kinda transmits the message "everything up 'til now was taken from this source", whereas a footnote after the first sentence doesn't really say anything about what follows... --Koveras☭ 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering a nomination for Good Article or Featured Article status. Suggestions for which path is more appropriate for this article are welcome.
I'm specifically looking for suggestions on section ordering, as well as overall article content - are some sections too trivial for an encyclopedia article? Are there aspects of the subject that should be covered in an encyclopedia article that are missing from or undercovered in this one? Suggestions for where the references need improvement (quality or quantity) are also something I'm looking for.
And of course any other improvements that need to be made to make this one of Wikipedia's recognized higher quality articles.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple quick comments (not a full review). First, I commend the editors working on this article so seriously. I'm assuming this is a high-vandalism article so it takes a lot of patience. Kudos!
First, expand the lead as per WP:LEAD. As far as sections, I think you've done a great job: nothing seems irrelevant (though the "Other uses" section borders on it... but good sourcing overrides any complaint I might have) but maybe reconsidering the organization is a good idea. "History," for example, seems important enough to move up. Then, just a suggestion here, maybe move "Prevalence" into a subsection under it, renamed as "Prevalence today." "Etymology" might become a subsection here too, if you're so inclined. I wonder, too, if the Roman Catholic Church subsection belongs under "Role in sex education" - may there needs to be a "Controversy" or "Debates" section? You could throw the "Disposal" section under there too. Really, all of what I'm saying here is just off the top of my head; I'm assuming you'll put more thought into it and decide if it'll actually work!
I would suggest putting some consideration into the images. I actually think there are too many that don't tie in or at least seem out of place. Make sure the images are complementing the article's text, not just tossed in (the image from Buenos Aries is a good example: the article says nothing about it, so the image seems out of place). Images you don't end up using could be turned into a category on Wikimedia Commons, if there isn't one already. Also, consider moving a couple to the left so it's not so right-heavy.
Also, consider expanding why Somalia bans condoms... and add a source about condoms having negligible impact in landfills.
Anyway, great job here. Keep it up (no pun intended...)! --Midnightdreary 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lead, although the new prose may still be a little rough around the edges. How far up would you move the History section? The pill article has it as the very first section, as does the general birth control article, although I'm unsure if that's the information most readers want to see at the top of this article. I did remove two of the images that didn't seem directly related to the text, although left-handed images look funny to me in this article's mostly short section. I put "Etymology" inside "History", created a "Debate and criticism" section, and put "Prevalence" inside a new "Use" section. I also just reworded the sentence about the condoms in landfills and used the existing source (which says "the little bit of foil or plastic you have to throw away... seem like small prices to pay for the protection that condoms offer"). Condoms were banned in Somalia to comply with Sharia law, although I'm hesitant to get into that in the short prevalence section for fear of giving that item undue weight.
Thanks so much for your suggestions! LyrlTalkC 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A useful article with plenty of good, encyclopedic images. Agree the article needs some layout/section help. In general, I'd recommend using fewer headings; for this article you could "roll up" smaller sections into a bigger one. I usually don't do more than a ===Level 3=== heading. Under "varieties" use the following, and suggest you not use any more than:
==Varieties==
===Latex===
===Polyurethane===
===Labskin===
===Experimental===
The level 4 headings have been removed from the "Varieties" section.
Get rid of the "Overview" section, this is what the lead is supposed to be.
Done
The "effectiveness" section layout is good. Consider putting "Etymology" under the history section.
Done
Prevalence section should be expanded or possible combined with another section.
Consider creating a section for "use" (might be able to think of a better title for it) where you describe using the condom; include the knot-tie disposal and "Some men and women feel..." bit under this section. Put the environmental impact stuff under the specific condom variety in the varieties section.
"Prevalence" section put inside new "Use" section, environmental impact put inside new "Debate and criticism" section.
The "Other uses" section seems to be trivia-like; better to write a few paragraphs summarizing how different applications take advantage of the condom's ability to stretch and not break etc.
I'm going to have to think about this one some more. The other uses are really disparate, and I'm having a hard time putting them together in a coherent paragraph or two.
The lead could use some expansion, I would expect a 2 or possibly 3 paragraph lead in an article this size. The lead should summarize all the major points of the article. (eg, should mention that condoms can be used for many purposes etc.)
Done.
Talk about the latex condom in more detail (the lambskin section gets good treatment, but not the latex section)
The lambskin section was actually mostly unsourced, so I really shortened that section. The latex section, I think, was bigger than it looked - I moved a good part of it into the new "Debate and criticism" section, and I hope the new (shorter) latex section reads better now.
Image:Posecondom.jpg - sure this is not copyvio? fx image page.
I searched Google images first 30 pages of hits for "condom" and "condom instruction". No idea where that image came from, although someone who knew French might have better luck. I've put a request at Talk:Condom#Image copyright issue to see if anyone else can find more information on the image.
I fixed the link in the lead, that was the only one I found.
..."An Egyptian drawing of a condom being worn has been found to be 3,000 years old. It is unknown, however, if the Egyptian pictured wearing the device intended to use it for contraception, or for ritual purposes." Double-check out facts here. Calling this a "condom" might be misleading; if I could see what inscription actually looks like I could offer an interpretation. A better source might be a scholarly Egyptology reference rather than a planned parenthood reference.
WebMD also has that information [4], as does Encarta [5]. Would one or both of those references be better, or does this need a primary source?
I think WebMD and Encarta are both tertiary sources like wikipedia, and may have gotten their information from the same source. I'm not doubting it, but for my own curiosity and just to make sure it is reliable, it would be good to have a more authoritative source. Planned parenthood would be a good source for information on pregnancy rates or condom usage statistics, but not ancient history. Being an ancient Egypt buff myself, if I happen to come across a reference I'll be sure to add it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Planned Parenthood does give a reference for the statement, but it's also a tertiary source:
Parisot, Jeannette (1985). Johnny Come Lately: A Short History of the Condom. London: The Journeyman Press Ltd. ISBN1-85172-0006.
Thanks for offering to keep this in mind! LyrlTalkC 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs expansion, especially in cultural perceptions of condom use, and how condom use has increased over time and the extent to which they have reduced the rates of STDs.
You're right. That will be a longer-term project for me, though.
Try turning one-sentence paragraphs into full paragraphs. Single-sentences standing alone could also be incorporated into a larger paragraph, so that the article doesn't feel stubby or listy.
I did a little bit of single-sentence incorporation. The remaining sentences, like with the other uses section, I'm going to have to think about how to integrating. Or it may be another area where expansion is needed, which may require some time to research.
I for one think the number of images is OK, but they need to be better integrated. Once the article is expanded, the images won't feel so crowded.
For now, I did remove two of the images that were not directly related to the text.
With a little work on the section headings/layout and some work on the prose, the article will be in pretty good shape. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for so many helpful suggestions! LyrlTalkC 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to improve the article, especially with photos. I'm sure there are some 25V's out there with some good photos. I'd also like some more current information, especially from recent DINFOS grads.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to continue improving this article, possibly even sending it to GAC, but I'm at a loss for what to do next. Any help apprecitated. —Quasirandom (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of some of the things that jump out at me:
The introduction writes on how the series is known in Indonesia, South Korea and to the fans. Is that really necessary?
Some sentences could be written in a more concise manner; like changing The manga was originally published by Kodansha in the magazine Afternoon from June 1994 to February 2006 to The manga was serialized in Kodansha's Afternoon magazine from June 1994 to February 2006.
There's some facts that need citations.
The list of prominent mysteries could be changed to prose, maybe even transform into a section on the series "Setting".
"Unofficial fan translations" are not notable... I think.
Is there info on the series' origins, author's inspirations, etc?
There's no need to repeat the voice actresses in the "Anime" section.
Some info on the plot of the OVA's (and Drama CD's) could be useful. Also, is there any relation between the anime and audio dramas?
A short explanation of mono no aware could be good, so the reader doesn't have to go to another article to understand what this article is talking about.
That's what I have for now.--Nohansen 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Those are helpful. To respond to a couple of those, the other names are because I've seen the series referred to in discussion by at least the Korean name, and wanted the disambiguation; the Indonesian name can probably go, though. I once tried putting the bulleted mysteries into prose, only to find it read more awkwardly; that was with an older, longer version of the list, and possibly it's time to try again. I'll work on the others over the next *mumble* days. —Quasirandom 20:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent non-fiction book. Looking for comments on the article's structure, topics covered, and language used. Thanks, maclean 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Salon review and am hoping to pick up a copy when back in Canada. This is a good page, maclean. Some notes:
Audit for tense, particularly in the Synopsis. Sometimes the future auxillary is used ("Bodies would be quickly eaten...") but sometimes it's present simple ("Houses deteriorate..."). The former makes the most sense.
"Addressing the book's concept..." occurs in the middle of the article. I think it might make more sense to have a Concept section right off the top. I'd retitle Writing; perhaps Production and writing, or Research and writing.
There's a couple of sentences that are just a mess of bluelinks. You need to do something about the second sentence of Reception, for instance.
Synopsis has too few quotes. Reception may have too many.
Those are my thoughts on a first read through. Marskell (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing. (1) I know eventually I have to face the tense issue. I wasn't sure which was corrent. Future auxillary is correct for the Synopsis? Reception should be present tense though, correct? As in "Kamiya writes that...". (2) Agreed. The 3 headers Synopsis-Writing-Reception was my attempt to keep certain aspects centralized and separated but as I read it more I'm thinking of going to 5 headers Background-Synopsis-Genre-Reception-Publication and re-working the Synopsis to say not only what the book says but also how he says it. (3) That is to say, work in the interviewees from the first mess of blue links. Originally they weren't all blue. But now they are. On the second blue list, I'll try dropping the station names. (4) I'll look to add poignant quotes to the Synopsis. I avoided summarizing reviewer opinions because when I tried I found myself twisting or compromising the original intent - and I figured if I'm simply re-stating what they said I may as well use their words. But I'll look to rationalize them and remove anything unnecessary. --maclean 20:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1): Yes—where you're talking about what would happen in the synopsis, use "would" :). For reviewers comments, the present perfect and the present simple are both acceptable: "Jones has written..." or "Jones writes...". With certain phrasing, the past simple might be appropriate: "In 2004, Jones wrote..." Marskell (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I heard an interview with Weisman on NPR and was intrigued by his book, so it was nice to read this article and learn more about it.
Small things:
What do you think about using one of the book covers at the top of the article? Colorful pictures draw readers in. We must pander sometimes.
I am not really a fan of infoboxes. They do not have information to offer that is not in the article and I worry about trying to classify books. Since infoboxes are not required, I tend not to use them on articles about books and people.
Prose:
Overall, I would suggest a copy edit by someone who hasn't been poring over the article day and night. It is helpful to have that fresh pair of eyes. I made a few changes while I was reading, but more could be done. Ex:
The author of four other books and numerous articles for magazines - Can these be generalized in any way, such as "the author of four other popular science books"?
He uses quotes from these interviews to explain the effects of the natural environment without human maintenance. - a little awkward
It has received largely positive reviews, specifically for the writing style - What kind of style?
Among the 23 page bibliography, are 2 articles he wrote for the Los Angeles Times Magazine ("Naked Planet" on persistent organic pollutants, and "The Real Indiana Jones" on the Mayan Civilization) and one published in the Conde Nast Traveler ("Diamond in the Wild" on diamond mining), as well as Discover's "Earth Without People". - I'm not sure this is relevant.
Sections:
The "Synopsis" is too long and detailed - it doesn't feel like a summary to me. You quote one critic later who says there is no overarching narrative - does that mean each chapter kind of stands alone? That would make writing a summary difficult, but perhaps you could write "there are n chapters, and x deal with these kinds of topics and y deal with these other kinds of topics..." and then work from there.
I saw many items that could be linked and then I thought if I started linking them all it would be a sea of blue. I'm not really sure what to do about this problem. You will probably have to sit around and think very carefully about what to link. WP:MOS-L has some good guidelines.
I liked the "Genre" and "Publication" sections in the other draft, although I might move some of the information around a bit (if you decide to create those sections, we can figure out what should go there). Right now the "Writing" section is a bit disparate - it needs subsections to add a sense of organization, I think.
I agree with the previous reviewer that the "Reception" section has too many quotes. It is hard to see the forest for the trees there - what was the overall reception?
I hope this was helpful. Awadewit | talk 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing your specific points, I will put in an image (though it will be fair use), I like infoboxes (I view them index cards), will do my best on prose and will request copyedits (thanks for doing the lead), switched the Synopsis format to one that explains more of how it was said and with less detail of what was said, moved the "Genre" and "Publication" sections over to mainspace, added introductory sentences to explain the overall points made by critics. Thank you for your help. --maclean 09:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preity Zinta is an actress in Bollywood movies of India. The article was a GA, and was recently delisted. The article also went through an unsuccessful FAC. The major concerns are — WP:RS (please see talk page of the article), language (sounded like fancruft at places). Another new issue has arrived — the need for a daughter article. Please see the article, and comment.
Comment - I usually review articles upside down. Fixed a minor issue in the cats. EL looks clean. But hit a roadblock with the refs. boxofficeindia, indiantelevision, desiparty, indiaenews, bollyvista, asianoutlook are not RS. Sarvagnya 05:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, this is a real problem. Will try, and update; let's see.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are non-RSes according to YOU. Most have been approved as RSes. boxofficeindia.com, indiantelevision.com and bollyvista.com are RSes. See talk page. Shahid • Talk2me 12:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid, no consensus on whether bollyvista, boxofficeindi, indiantelevison are RS has been arrived at. I put some points in the talk page of the article, and also on WT:INB. But. let's expect more input from the community. Meanwhile, we cannot take it for granted that those websites are RS. Sarvagnya is correct in his opinion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see hwat happens. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
replying Sarvagnya : Hi. We'll remove all those websites (bollyvista, desiparty, apunkachoice etc) you mentioned, except, for the time being, boxofficeindia and ibosnetwork. I request you to continue to review and give further suggestions, keeping in mind that the RS issue is being managed. Indeed, if no box office reliable source is got, we'll remove the numerical figures. I am in the process of contacting IBOSnetwork. If the responses are not convincing, will remove citations from that website. Meanwhile, trying to find out RS.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - The article certainly looks much better in shape compared to when it was listed for GA reassessment. Good job there, Dwaipayan.
Groomed in an army household, Zinta grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality. - The reference given is subject's own interview. Needs to be supported by a secondary source or else needs to be removed.
..where she experienced loneliness, later commenting in an interview with The Times of India, "But I didn't regret spending time away from them (family) because I had a perfect set of friends (at school). – Right. So what? - Sounds unencyclopedic and undue to this article.
..she appeared in several catalogs and other commercials such as that of Liril. – Need some data from reliable sources on which are those several catalogs and other commercials.
"Early life and background" section is heavily relied upon from the references of subject's own interviews. It would have more encyclopedic value, if all those information were from secondary reliable sources.
I also think that "...did not regret" quote is undue (exactly he same question comes into my mind — "so what?"). Indeed there are one or two more instances which I have plans to curb/remove. A peer review will help consolidate those decisions. Thanks. However, one question. The subject's interviews — are not they reliable sources? Why do we need a secondary source? It's from the horse's mouth. Is there any guideline/recommendation about it?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is simple. Veerappan, in his interview, claims "All the things I do for the sake of my people, and for the benefit XYZ". So, can we write in encyclopedia, as if that is true?
Now in Veerappan article, is it allowed to write: "Veerappan has done all those for the sake of his people and for the benefit of XYZ". ?
If Sachin Tendulkar claims in an interview "I am the best batsman in the World", can we write in Sachin Tendulkar article lead, "Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman in the World" ? - KNMTalk 06:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
it is not contentious;
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- All the interview quotes, claims, information need to be revisited from the point of above conditions. Especially the last condition is very important. Not so long ago, the article was heavily based upon information from interviews. KNMTalk 07:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is invalid. LOL, interviews are considered self-published? Who said that? And where can you see interviews there in this policy? First of all, it is not self published. Secondly, it says: "Using the subject as a self-published source" - nobody said interviews. Thirdly, your example of Sachin is a bad one. I can't see what's the co-relation. If Zinta says "I'm the best actor in the country" we obviously can't add that in anyway, but if she says, "I was born in 1975/acted in 30 films/learnt the principles.." - so what's the problem? And the statemnts on this article are mostly similar to my latter example. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 13:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I would like to know what is the name of Preity Zinta's autobiography, and the publisher name and ISBN. Also reference to it in the article is highly recommended. Thanks - KNMTalk 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't talk about autobiography. Interviews are not self-published by no means whatsoever. And BTW, the material is permitted according to these conditions. I repeat for the Xth time, everything you find on the net or anywhere regarding an actor's background, is told by him in any case, whether it's an interview or not. And I repeat once again, your so called policy doesn't apply to interviews at all. You haven't provided any policy/guideline stating that interviews are not permitted, especially considering that everybody will laugh about this statement. Interviews are bad? Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My response to KNM's comments - first of all, thanks for your comments.
Groomed in an army household, Zinta grew up with values such as discipline and punctuality. - The reference given is subject's own interview. Needs to be supported by a secondary source or else needs to be removed.
So what did you think? ALL the info about an actor's background is told by him, isn't it? Nobody said that she is punctual. She grew up with these values. Only that. There is nothing wrong with that. And there are no direct policies against interviews as sources of info especially when it comes to background and family. It doesn't need more references. I repeat, background of a celebrity is obviously told by him. Please make your point clear.
..where she experienced loneliness, later commenting in an interview with The Times of India, "But I didn't regret spending time away from them (family) because I had a perfect set of friends (at school). – Right. So what? - Sounds encyclopedic unencyclopedic and undue to this article.
Done - I think you meant un-encyclopedic. Yes? See page of Jolie. Her loneliness at school is mentioned. All her childhood days are there. Even if we don't include this quote, we have to mention that Zinta was away from family, she experienced loneliness, she was popular at school, etc.. all these things are part of her background, life and personality. This quote illustrates perfectly an important part of her childhood. Although she was lonely, away from family and home, she was OK, why? Because she was popular at school, she had many friends. Only one quote of one line shows all these details. With or without this quote, it has to be mentioned.
You are right, I meant unencyclopedic. Thanks for pointing it. I have corrected.
I've seen that several times. Doesn't imply to FAs. And I am not talking about specific content, I'm talking about general stuff, and these facts must be mentioned, as part of her background. Shahid • Talk2me 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..she appeared in several catalogs and other commercials such as that of Liril. – Need some data from reliable sources on which are those several catalogs and other commercials.
OK. Will look for. But again, it is clearly mentioned in the refs. I don't think we have to give you 10 sources of different commercials. If we write: "He starred in more than 5 films", is an RS ref which states the same insufficient? Do we have to give you over 5 references with different titles to prove the above claim? I don't think so. And again, there is no policy against that.
Can you please point out what is clearly mentioned in the refs? From available information from the refs, the statement can be best put like, ..she appeared in commercials such as that of Liril. - KNMTalk 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already Done. The word several also appears in the refs anyway. Shahid • Talk2me 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Early life and background" section is heavily relied upon from the references of subject's own interviews. It would have more encyclopedic value, if all those information were from secondary reliable sources.
ALL the info about an actor's background is told by him, isn't it? So what kind of a source you want to see? Interview is the best thing we can get, especially because it is relied upon from the references of subject's own interviews. And again, there is no policy against interviews.
We can find a source saying, "she was a good student, loved literature, sports, she was extremly naughty" and it's not an interview, it's OK. But... one minute - although it's not an interview --- It was obviously told by her, the info about her background wasn't written by the author just because he knew that miraculously. Zinta is the one who tells her background story in any case.
OK so finally, I think, these concerns are so minor, yet at the same time they can be very crucial and important. We have to work on it carefully. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the whole purpose of having the article pass through peer review process. - KNMTalk 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinting that out, but I knew that without you too. Shahid • Talk2me 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the repeated references to Angelina Jolie; if that article has issues, then perhaps it needs to go for a featured article review? Comparing to another FA is never wise, as others FAs aren't always up to snuff. I remember being unimpressed by Jolie when it came through FAC. It passed FAC with 4 Supports and 1 Object; not exactly exemplary or something to aim for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, the Jolie article is an FA, and if you want to write a similar FA, you will definitely use some other FAs as role-models. That's obvious. Now, re Jolie, it's very unlikely to be delisted, as it's only got better since the promotion. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 06:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The images are all of suspect licensing. See here. Dont bother removing them just yet, though. I believe their fate will be decided soon and we can wait. That apart, screenshots from movies are not FU for this article. They can be used on the movie articles but not this article. Using them is blatant abuse of FU pictures. Sarvagnya 08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I wasn't convinced that those screen images could be used fairly as they are of the film. They were only recently added in fact to attempt to improve it, judging by the three images that were being used on the FA article Angelina Jolie and many other FA or top articles which have one or two key screenshots to try to enhance the discussion. But to remove these and then have many questionable "fair use" images in many other FA is double standards. I noticed that somebody has removed one or two now from the Jolie article. Either we have them or we don't. I know a lot of trouble has been caused by the images and it is nice to have them in the article but really all people have to do is click on the film to see images that can be used under fair use and google image the actors -two seconds it takes. Hopefully something can be sorted where we can legitimately and without question at least keep one or two and not have to completely make the article nude!!♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Talk"? 12:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is permitted if we provide a critical commentary on the film. It is done like this in several FAs. Shahid • Talk2me 12:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pointing to other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there is something wrong about another article, it doesnt mean you reproduce it in yours. Now, since you seem to either have no clue how things work, let me explain. Wikipedia deals in free content. All the content we use here is licensed such that anybody, anywhere can use our content any which way they please. Even for commercial enterprise. This is what we do and as a result of what we do, we're today one of the top ten websites on the internet and people donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to wikipedia.
Now, if we were to use FU images(images over which we have no rights in the first place) indiscriminately in our articles, it will be like we're stealing somebody else's copyright and giving it away for charity. We have no business collecting donations or being a popular site doing that. And this is why many people on wikipedia even hold the view that there shouldnt be any fair use images at all. People like you give such a view added legitimacy. I hope you see the folly and impropriety of your actions at least now. If you dont, you'll only bring wikipedia a bad name. Also, screenshots of movies serve no "critical commentary" purpose in a BLP. It can at best serve such a purpose in an article about that movie and even there FU pics should be used sparingly. Sarvagnya 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me "stop". I'm aware of this policy, and it doesn't imply to well checked and investigated FAs. We are permitted to use FU images to illustrate acritical commentary on the film, or precisely: "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". Kal Ho Naa Ho is described a a tearjerker. And that exatly what the image says. This is debetable, so we have to discuss it. Shahid • Talk2me 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid, you are trying to misrepresent the policies. "For identification and critical commentary on the film and it's contents" is for the article on the movie and not biographical articles on person. Using movie posters as fair use in this article is unacceptable. Those pictures are fair use for movie article and not for this article, especially when there is lot of room to obtain free images. I have said it before and I'm repeating. Please go through the guidelines for using fair use images. These images will fail several of those criteria. -- Gnanapiti (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should have read further; see my point above. Please avoid comparing to Angelina Jolie, which was not an exemplary or well reviewed FAC. Further, articles deteriorate. And, reviewers for *this* article won't be the same necessarily as for that article. Just because something else got by, doesn't mean it always will. 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
No. It is not written "on the film page" and according to what an admin told me, it is permitted on an actor's article if it does that. Wait, I have to consult some people. Shahid • Talk2me 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these images would fail. So, let's wait sometime for the outcome in this discussion. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sir, I'm not talking about BollywoodBlog images. I'm talking about this, this and this image. Those movie posters are uploaded as fair use images and can be used used only in the articles on those movies. You can't just take screen shots from hundreds of sources and claim their fair use all over wikipedia. Fair use images have very strict and specific guidelines and they are not ought to be used where they don't qualify as fair use. Movie posters are certainly not fair use for this biography. First of all, using fair use images for living persons is not allowed. On top of that cropping movie posters to illustrate a living person is abuse of fair images. -- Gnanapiti (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, screenshot images from movies are not fair use on this article and will have to go. Sarvagnya 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I said that I have to consult some editors. Will talk about it later. If the community permits the usage of FU images, as it does on Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy and other FAs, and as some editors on the FAC said hat FUs are permitted, I doubt that it's not permitted. Let's see. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 17:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Gnanapiti, I thought you were talking about the BollywoodBlog images. AFAIK, Gnanapiti and sarvagnya are correct in pointing out that posters/screenshots are fair use only in the article of that film, not in the article of the author. However, there may be some exceptional cases (for example, the screenshots in the Satyajit Ray article). I don't see any such exceptional instance here in Preity Zinta. so, these screenshots better be removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, I see the uploader of those images have written the FU rationale with proper care. However, I fear those won't be considered in an FAC.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll still wait for the outcome of BollywoodBlog debate. If the consensus is to delete all images, then we can use one fair use image to illustrate the subject on the grounds of unavailability of free images (in my opinion). We can't use fair use images in the infobox though. If the consensus of the debate is to keep, then movie posters are irrelevant in the article. As of now, movie posters can't be used in the article as we have plenty of free images in the article. -- Gnanapiti (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure if your claims are correct so they won't go as of now. I said, many FAs use FUs, with or without free licensed images. So I now want to ask some editors for an opinion. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar reservations, particularly as several FAs have been promoted to and remained FAs despite having such images in them. If these concerns were valid, I have to think that those articles would never have even been considered for FA status, let alone received and kept it. I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use images of celebs in Biography article?, and am awaiting responses there. -- John Carter (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "See Also" section can be easily removed, as at the moment it has only two links. See if you can cover List of Indian movie actresses link anywhere in the article. List of Rajputs, IMO, is vaguely related to this article. See WP:ALSO for more details, and it is a good practice to absorb these links in the article and get rid of "See also" section, unless we have stuffs like corresponding Portal etc. - KNMTalk 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done = correct. removed "See also". Incorporating elsewhere later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[List of Indian film actresses|Indian film actresses]] - It does not direct us to the correct and relevant page. She is Indian - which must linked in an appropriate way, and an actor. Links should refer the readers to the right definition of these terms. We'll find later where we can add it, it's not an urgency. Shahid • Talk2me 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Thanks for pointing that out, but I've already gone through it. I have this program set, and I display it on different pages. This article has no problems from what I see and regularly check. Two comments are irrelevant, and one is yet to be done. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 12:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Potential problem; can you all please check these out?
There may be others; these are samples. Unlike other Times of India articles, where the author's name is given, these three indicate "TNN" in the space where others have an author. Who/what is TNN? Are these either letters to the editor or from the editor (editorials), which wouldn't rise to the level of reliable sourcing needed for a BLP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this means:
She challenged the press to come up with proof, and offered Rs 1 crore (10 million) if an injured woman were found ...
Reply to Sandy TNN is Times News Network, the news agency of the Times of India newspaper and related publications.
10 million Rs.Rectifying that. The sentence fragment you cited, yes, clarifying that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images of Preity from Kya Kehna, Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna and Kal Ho Na Ho are screen shots and shoulf be used only in articles related to the movies. Not here. KnowledgeHegemony 15:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the caption of the image alongside is "vague". Please specify what Premium charity?? What sort of charity is called Premium?? I guess it must have been some "_________ ______ Premium" charity. Please solve this issue.File:Zinta4.jpgZinta at the Premium charity function.(Premium?? what?? please add more??)
Hey thanks for the comments. I'll look for more info for this image. As for the screenshots, this issue is being dealt with amongst some experienced editors on other common forums. The big concern is that many FAs use screenshots. So how can it be possible? Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the glorification of Preity Zinta by this so-called critic Taran Adarsh in the article. He seems to have given very bad ratings for films like Swades and Black. I am questioning his neutrality in writing about films, as other people in various blogs on the net have done. May be one should read, this, this, this and this article. Don't blame me that these are blogs, I am showing them as an example of what people think about his reviews.
I know Adarsh is being criticised at times, but every critic has his own opinion, just like every individual blogger has. I'm also not a big fan of his reviews, though I tend to agree on some things. But indiaFM is an RS, Taran was a director formerly. Now he's a critic and even a TV host of some show which you can see on this site too, with the biggest stars of the industry (SLB John Abraham, Shahid Kapoor, Farah Khan). Nobody glorifies Zinta. Reviews cannot glorify someone for the simple fact that they are written by critics, not us. And as says one of the bloggers there, Taran Adarsh is very prominent today. Sanjay Leela Bhansali was on his show pre Saawariya's release, but it didn't stop him from criticising the film. So he is not biased. Reputable sources frequently mention him [6]. Thanks. Shahid • Talk2me 09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting on whether Taran Adarsh is notable or not. I have an issue with the reviews he writes, though, and they dont seem to be very objective. Due to the enormous criticism that he has received, we should ask whether his views carry any weight (which does not seem to be the case) and hence should his comments be taken at face value and be mentioned in this article. You also agree that you are not a fan on his reviews. Why should an arm-chair critic whose reviews dont seem to be objective, get space for his non-notable reviews in this article? How do we know that he is objective and unbiased? Here's another joke review by him -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I cannot answer your question. Just like you can't know if he is unbiased, you can't prove that he's actually biased. Different blogs accuse him of being biased, but these are only blogs, and nobody, not bloggers, not you nor me, have the authority to invalidate his reviews, because he is a critic who is very well recognised for his work today. Many people tend to hate critics, don't they? And many of them hate their reviews. And many critics are known for their sharpness and criticisms. His low ratings for Black and Swades, only prove that he is not here to glorify films or actors. As critic, he has his right to express his opinions; when it comes to reviews, everything is based here on personal opinions, whether it's Taran Adarsh or Roger Ebert. I really don't think that someone here can invalidate his reviews because many bloggers hate his reviews, it seems silly. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a critic who cannot judge the calibre of a Swades or a Black or a Lagaan, is not good enough to be called a critic. His low ratings for Black and Swades, only proves that he is useless as a critic. While the comments by the critic are his POV, they better be objective. Taran Adarsh, hardly seems objective. His comments dont seem to carry any weight and needs to be removed. It does seem very silly that he cannot judge a film as good as Lagaan, bloggers seem to be much better critics than what he is. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, everything you say here is your POV. Taran Adarsh is one of the most prominent critics today (fact). Taran Adarsh's reviews are unfair (POV). I personally wasn't really impressed with Lagaan. Really. As for Black, nice film, but merely copied. I can also disagree and hate reviews of one particular critic. So what? There are many readers who hate some particular critics. So what? I can't see the point here. Again, neither you nor me have the authority to invalidate his reeviews. Everything is based on POVs here. And as you say, bloggers hate him.. ??? Bloggers?? ... !! While reputable sources quote him verbatim. If I told you now that Roger Ebert is biased and we shouldn't quote him, your natural response would be "and who are you?". Just like this I ask now, "who are these bloggers?".
I'm sorry, editors on Wikipedia have no authority to invalidate reviews of notable and very well regarded critics, just because they hate them. This is going nowhere. There is no point in it. Nobody really will remove reviews of critics that you, or any other editor on Wikipedia or any blogger hates. Critics are not here to write what you want them to. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, even if a reputable source says that Taran Adarsh is biased, it's still POV and it still doesn't help because he is Taran Adarsh, a very well known critic. Let alone when it comes to editors on Wikipedia, or bloggers. In fact, Reputable sources cite him as a good critic. This discussion is pointless. Shahid • Talk2me 10:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When he has made mistakes with Swades, Black and Lagaan, how do you know that whatever he has said about PZ is true. I have every right to question the objectivity of his POV. Whatever he is saying may not be the actual fact or the majority opinion. Read WP:UNDUE. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again POV. "mistakes"??? What do you mean by mistakes? Everything is based on your POV here. You liked the film, I didn't and million people across the globe could hate it. Adarsh didn't find these films good enough to give them 5 on 5. I think he's fair, you didn't. So what's the matter? After all, he is a notable critic. That's all. And WP:UNDUE has absolutely no relation here. Actually there isn't a policy to support it. Again I repeat, editors on Wikipedia (and bloggers on the net) have no authority to invalidate the reviews of notable one critic, who is cited in reputable sources, and whose views are quoted verbatim in numerous RSes. I can give you tons of RSes. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 10:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) You have to prove that his comments about PZ are unbiased and objective, and is the majority opinion. This has to be done to satisfy WP:NPOV. Whether, Taran Adarsh is a reputed critic is a big question mark. Since there are lot of films which he has mentioned as not good films, which have went on to become successes. Don't just blindly mention him, bring in the majority view. We are writing an encyclopedia, not an ad for PZ's future films. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to stop the discussion here. I will have more to say on this, if and when this article goes to FAC. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits —Preceding comment was added at 11:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I think that we have to coclude things now at the moment, rather than ruining another FAC. That's why we have a peer review.
Sorry, you are the one who has to prove that he is biased, because you are the one who claims that he's biased, and you started this discussion. So far, you have only said that he's biased, that Lagaan is great and that bloggers criticise him.. Please...
I don't have to prove nothing, because Adarsh is a famous, prominent, well recognised critic. His reviews are quoted verbatim in reputable sources.
As for this - "lot of films which he has mentioned as not good films, which have went on to become successes." - pointless. A critic is not a soothsayer. A critic is a critic (notable one). His views are important regardless of what business a film he reviewed does later, if it's a box office success or if it wins an Oscar. Additionally, critics don't hold a cristal ball, they just give their opinions and that's all. "a successful film" doesn't necessarily mean "a critically acclaimed film". Even two years after Devdas, have you heard what Shobha De said about it? "It was a nothing film. A big budget film with great costumes and it didn't deserve any of the hype it received."
Readers read that and that's all, and if someone disagrees it's his problem. Many actors say, "critics - crap". Your opinions on him is just another expression of someone disliking a critic. It's your right (and your POV). I've already provided his notability. And if reputable sources quote him verbatim (which means that they do appreciate his views), neuther bloggers nor editors on Wikipedia can invalidate his views. That's all. I have nothing to add. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've never witnessed a case that an actor received an award for his performance while Adarsh criticised him. Look what he wrote there about Rani Mukerji while reviewing Black, "And yes, she's bound to walk away with all major awards next year as well!" - no? Shahid • Talk2me 11:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One and last note. Last Diwali, Adarsh reviewed both Om Shanti Om and Saawariya. He liked OSO but criticised saawariya. If you see users' own reviews on the site, you'll see that their opinions are very similar to Adarsh ones. Shahid • Talk2me 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, has been said and done above, it boils down to this. Prove that his views about PZ are the majority opinion. You are mistaking his notability. He might be notable by finding a mention in different articles, but you have to prove that whatever he has said about PZ is notable and a majority opinion, good enough to be mentioned in the article. This is needed because people reading this article will have the view that whatever is mentioned in the article is the majority opinion and the fact. Which need not be the case if it is the POV of one single critic. An encycolpedia needs to be factual and not a space for critics to mention whatever their views are. If you understand and agree to my point, well and good. If you dont, I dont want to pursue this matter further. Anyways, I wish you good luck at the FAC. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks friend!
Why don't you say the same about Rediff or variety? I do understand your point, but that's exactly what you can say about every review. And he is notable enough to present his opinion as a representative one. Don't worry, if his views about Zinta were not the majority opinion, I would definitely write that reviews were mixed or even negative, I'm not here to glorify her. In fact, there are only four reviews of Adarsh there. The review of KANK is supported by Rediff (positive reviews), the review of JBJ is supported by The Times of India (mixed reviews). Furthermore, all the reviews of Adarsh on the article are for roles that earned her many nominations at different award ceremonies. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 11:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shahid, I realise that this may be a perennial problem about whether critics' views should find a mention in any film-related or film actor-related article. I will open up a discussion in a forum where others can participate. I would definitely want to hear what others have to say on this. Honestly, I feel that PZ does some good roles and hence is a good actress. However, I also feel that her article on Wiki needs to be an objective portrayal of her career. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have no problem with that, but I think that you definitely can invite everybody to participate here, if that's gonna be mainly about Zinta. My work is inspired by other FAs, and that's what other FAs do. Taran's reviews in particular only support claim.
Here are the performances she was nominated for (those which are marked with (*) are accompanied by Taran's reviews on the article):
Dil Se
Kya Kehna
Chori Chori Chupke Chupke
Dil Hai tumhara*
Kal Ho Naa Ho
Koi Mil Gaya
Armaan*
Veer-Zaara
Salaam Namaste*
KANK*
So basically, the fact that she nominated for this or another role means that she was praised, the reviews only support claims. Shahid • Talk2me 12:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened up a topic for discussion here. Hopefully, that should settle the argument. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 12:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to reach GA status someday. I would like to see whether the most recent edits made to it are heading in the right way and I would like to recieve specefic feedback on how to make the article better and address its lacks.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to reach at least Good Article Candidacy. I want any comments/contributions possible to improve the article
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the order of some references around to comply with the Manual of Style. One thing that stands out from looking over the article quickly is that it switches between present tense (eg. Jillian Hill sings a song), past tense (eg. The match started off with John Cena...) and conditional tense (Shawn Michaels would then attempt...). An article like this should all be in past tense (ie. "Jillian Hill sang a song" and "Shawn Michaels then attempted..."), as the event happened in the past. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some copyediting. A couple of concerns:
1) I don't understand this sentence: In the climax of the match, Nitro slammed Jeff onto the barricaded applying a facelock later in the ring.
Well I see what you mean, I mean to say "In the climax of the match, Nitro would slam Jeff onto the barricade, giving MNM control over the Hardys.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2) Why would Jamie Noble, the third entrant in the Cruiserweight Open, enter after Jimmy Wang Yang, the sixth entrant?
3) "However, Kane recuperated and chokeslammed Booker following a pin, thus winning the match." This sentence seems to imply that Kane pinned Booker, then recovered and chokeslammed him.
Error as I see ill fix itTrUcO9311 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4) Many of the references are lacking Access Dates.GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to that later today.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick glance - and I can see 6 - 7 images. You only need 2-3, in my view 6-7 is overkill. Davnel03 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former Featured Article, which is now at GA status. I have rewritten large amounts of the text and added references to just about everything. I believe it to be a NPOV, well referenced and comprehensive article. I have addressed the comments of the GA reviewer as best I can, with two left as "doing" because I am not sure if I need to add more detail. Being so close to an article, I am concerned that I am not seeing it from a broader angle and would appreciate comments on the prose, content and scope.
Its a complete and factual review of the facility. I made a couple of minor copyeds. I think a few more visuals would improve the article - perhaps pie-charts summarising the results of surveys? The figures within large bodies of text can be a bit daunting - but that might just be the lateness of the hour. No, it's a fine, clearly written summary of everything there is to know about the London Congestion charge. Kbthompson (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point which is niggling me (on a quick skim through - it may be addressed elsewhere) is the claim in the lead that it "serves as the model for similar schemes worldwide" - wasn't the London model directly lifted from Singapore's? — iridescent 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion. We have lots of sources saying that people from worldwide have visited the London scheme to see how to do one, but I can't find anything saying London learned from Singapore. I agree that it seems very likely though. Will keep looking. Regan123 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just done a quick copy edit. I have edited the lead paragraphs to remove the duplicated sentence on aims and moved that further up as I think the reason for the charge is more important than the amount charged at that point. I have also tried to pick-up and correct plural and singular mismatches (companies and organisations should be singular, e.g. "TfL is" not "TfL are") and informality in the writing style. I've replaced "Transport for London" with TfL throughout for consistency, corrected spellings and confusing ellipsis, standardised % and percent, etc. Given the amount of text, it would be helpful to make the images a bit bigger. The congestion charge zone map diagram also needs to be updated to show the expanded zone as well. Whilst the article has plenty of references and seems to be up to date, the writing still needs a bit of a polish. --DavidCane (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. Most appreciated. Regan123 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I immensely enjoyed reading this article, and I learned a lot from it. Though all the information belongs on Wikipedia, some of it could be effectively spun off into other articles. The first part of the "History" section, regarding road tolls in the UK before 1900, is not directly connected to the 21st-century London congestion pricing. Also, the description of congestion pricing in other cities such as Singapore and Stockholm should probably get just a brief mention, with further details to be linked in the main article on congestion pricing. The lead section is effective, but the third paragraph deals briefly with two separate issues, and could be better focused. Overall, it's easy to see why this was once a featured article, and I think it is still at or near FA caliber. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shalom, I've found it really interesting in helping to expand this article. I tried to reword your [clarification needed] in the section on the long term effect on congestion. I agree that it is quite surprising how an apparently big reduction in vehicles results in only a 7% improvement in congestion. After reading the detailed figures in their reports, it suggests that TfL's PR has been somewhat selectively reporting the benefits this has made on congestion. To explain, there were nearly 50% more long-term streetworks & lane closures in the base year before charging started in 2004 & 2005, and then works doubled in 2006, according to TfL's report. TfL concluded that the degradation of journey times in 2006 was largely down to these works, yet nowhere have they reported on the implication if that. Namely that, by the same measure, simply removing streetworks in 2004 & '5 could have resulted in some or all of the alleviation that was recorded. In a properly-conducted study one would question how much of the improvement in journeys times was actually down to the reduction in traffic caused by the congestion charge, versus the improvement in flows caused by better street management. Possibly that has been done but this is not in the public domain.
This is an age-old issue with highways; I've got doubled traffic flows in a road network after some predictive modeling to tweak street light phasing, roundabouts and lane management. Driver behaviour also makes a difference - the effect might be different in a provincial market town where people drive less aggressively ;-) The scheme also heralded the removal of the hop-on hop-off double decker and the introduction of long articulated buses - there have been theories about the delaying effect of such long vehicles in urban networks, and the effect is there to be seen. Thus the bendy bus might be undoing some of the benefits, but I'm not aware of any attempt to measure this effect here. We may never know, as the Western extension is probably going to create a whole range of new variables that will mean that next year's results will be even harder to explain.
I suspect that politically it may be a hard thing to announce that a third of private cars and minicabs have been discouraged off the roads, for perhaps a 7% saving in journey time. But I am wary of stating this in the article as the absence of reported research into the effects of the previous road conditions make it hard to get a real figure, and would be bordering onto WP:OR. (Obviously there are other benefits, such a reduction in emissions and local air quality, and the introduction of a new funding mechanism for public transport. However it is apparent that the benefits have been less than originally claimed, and it is possible that some of these goals could have been achieved by other means.) Ephebi (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the comments Shalom and to Ephebi for his continued expansion of the article. To the specific points you make it is always a difficult balance on providing context. However there is more information to come on the general issues onto other articles. Stay tuned!
Unfortunately I am working very long days at the moment so am unable to give the article the attention it deserves. I will be back at the weekend. Regan123 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to send it to WP:FLC (Featured Lists) eventually. I may also send it to WP:GA before nominating it for the featured list status. Hopefully you will enjoy reading it, especially the Reception sections. Although it is mainly a list of works, I have tried to annotate whenever possible.
Additionally, this list is based on the featured List of works by Joseph Priestley, imitating its style where comparable. If you have any criticism of the prose (of which there is much in this list of works) please speak up; I am interested. I would like to give this list of works as much polish as possible.
I am so impressed! Wow! This is a list of works to match. Here are my comments:
Just who this William Monaham? :) Seriously, I think you need an introductory paragraph. See Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, for example, which starts out with a description of her, her time, and her works. Timeline of Jane Austen (new!) also does this.
Thanks. It has been a lot of work but definitely worthwhile. The main article on William Monahan has benefited substantially from this retrospective of his past journalism work. You're right about the lede and I've made some changes to it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better now. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I further improved it. Those two timelines have excellent introductory paragraphs. Unfortunately there isn't as much to be said in my case. I will continue to see if I can improve the lede.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In another part of the inn a fire foments - do fires foment?
I changed the phrase to fire starts.
I think the infobox is unnecessary, as you are giving us the bibliographic information. It's intrusive - how about just the cover?
Done.
WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Blockquotes don't belong in call-outs and punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences.
I fixed the punctuation based on whether it's a complete sentence or a fragment. I also fixed the inside quotations and made use of the   in appropriate situations. Also, attributed the criticism of his first novel to the authors, not just the papers they worked for.
The Light House section seems like an article in and of itself - why not make it one and then summarize the article here?
I have considered this. At the moment I think it would be best to keep everything in one list of works because there is a lot of referral by the works themselves and by the Wikipedia list of works to the individual works. Examples:
The publication history criticism by Claude Dederer in the Reception section for Light House refers to the Publication section as well as to the Literature in Massachusetts section.
The Publication section for Light House refers to the "Dining Late with Claude La Badarian" section, in which the work itself on the New York Press web site makes all sorts of references to the various works in the bibliography.
Then there is also the "Dining Late with Claude La Badarian" section which gains a lot by its place in the list of works where you can make sense of all the inside-jokes and quirks in the serial narrative by just glancing about the list of works.
So while I could duplicate the Light House article on its own, it really benefits most by its place in the list of works as does the list of works itself. It seems atm to be the ideal set-up, especially considering the audience is not huge for Monahan's past works, and they are likely to get everything and more than they want to know by just consulting the List of works by William Monahan. Maybe if Light House was put back in print, and a second novel appeared or something, then the list of works might be best broken up into separate articles.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, but I think the list should be a bit more list-y and your mini-article should have its rightful place in the pantheon of articles. :) However, your points are well made - it is perhaps more a point of personal preference whether grouping all of the information together or separating it out is best. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I considered this, I realized I would have to copy a lot of sections into the Light House article, and then I just decided to settle with having it all in one list of works. The other sections that would have been copied over into a Light House: A Trifle article would have been the Old Crow Review serialization list, and the Dining Late with Claude La Badarian summary. It seems simpler to have everything in the list of works but that is my personal preference after all. I'm going to send this to WP:FLC and see what they say.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I wondered if your narration of events doesn't tip over into original research (good research!), but original nonetheless.
His last contribution to the Old Crow Review, titled "The Virtual Career", was innovative in its use of an electronic keychain game as a literary device used to chronicle the tragic decision-making process of a career man in the media world. - source?
You're right about this. Without a source I believe I am allowed to purely describe the article, but the qualifier innovative is OR and possibly the "electronic keychain game as a literary device" is OR although it really needs to be stated how odd "The Virtual Career" is. You're basically sent through a game of decisions, in which foolish decisions are made in lieu of other ones. It's one of my favorite pieces. Very funny.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this sentence to His last contribution to the Old Crow Review, titled "The Virtual Career", fictionalized an electronic keychain game in which a career man makes tragic decisions in New York City.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems more descriptive and less evaluative to me. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The letters from readers in the following weeks were more thoughtful - what justifies this statement?
I have revised the paragraph to be more pointed and hopefully removed any OR.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again - this looks more descriptive - the quotations work well, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the conclusion of the successful run of his column, he requested the job of editor of the magazine for the next Summer; the publisher granted him the promotion. - why "successful"?
I changed this sentence to At the conclusion of a successful run of his column, which initially "appeared at the back of the book" and eventually "migrated to the masthead" replacing the "Editor's Note", he requested the job of editor of the magazine for the next Summer;-BillDeanCarter (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I thought this was excellent and I have no doubt that you can resolve the above issues. Awadewit | talk 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. If I missed something or you have any further comments please let me know.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me just say this is stunningly comprehensive—you've certainly done your homework. I do have a few minor issues, though, mainly with the overall prose. I'll get to them in a while :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Any help with the prose would be appreciated.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I've boldly done some tweaking here; tell me what you think.
Thanks. I like the tweaks and I'm going to transfer them over the the main article on William Monahan. I did revert one thing about the 1997 Pushcart Prize, just because the 1998 Pushcart Prize is awarded in 1997, and it just avoids that confusion, as to whether you are being overly accurate when you say in 1997, or are simply referring to the year of the title of the pushcart prize. Simply put, the 1997 Pushcart Prize starts with a short story nominated in 1995 by a literary journal, and then notification follows in 1996, and finally the volume containing all the pushcart prize winning stories is published in Dec 1996, although I'm sure the volume spends most of its time being read in 1997. Yes, that's way too much detail, but after I had gone there and couldn't turn back.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He was awarded [...] an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Departed, his second produced screenplay."—could you change screenplay to script? It would make things flow a little better.
Done.
Note: Although this list of works has been meticulously compiled, it is based on amateur bibliographic research and should not be considered a professional bibliography. Is such a disclaimer necessary?
I removed it. It was just a warning that if I didn't get everything, don't kill me. It's simply amateur bibliographic research.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I wonder if you have any opinions on how I should proceed after this peer review? Whether I should go to GA for an additional stamp of approval, before heading to WP:FLC?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there's more :) GA is not for lists; FLC is the only process for them, and, even if there was an equivalent, GA isn't really a requirement for an article to be featured. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Take your time. I'm going to keep this LoW here for a while, and then once everything is polished I'll probably head to FLC.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to send this to WP:FLC now. If you do see any other problems with the prose let me know, but I think you already caught most of it. Thanks for all the help.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Three more things, and a question for good measure:
I think you can remove the IPA pronunciation here. It may be fine in the main article, but I think it's overkill here; it's not as if "William Monahan" is as hard to pronounce as, say, "Geike Arnaert" :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, in the following years his services as a screenwriter were in high demand [...]"—that seems a bit too... laudatory, if not downright promotional, especially for the lead. Sorry :)
I rewrote the sentence. I'm trying to illustrate the break, from publishing Light House to basically working heavily in screenwriting.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Literature published in Massachusetts", I'm curious as to why you listed the numbers of pages rather than specific page ranges.
For both the Old Crow Review and Perkins Press there were no page numbers. You can see further down for the Pushcart Prize I also just listed 3 pages. In that case I could list page numbers. Is that the correct thing to do?
Is William Georgiades of the New York Times William Georgiades of the Old Crow Review?
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to resubmit the article for FA soon, so I'd be grateful for any improvements anyone could suggest.Atlantik (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several problems with non-free media in the article. I'll start tagging them with notices for work to be done. In brief, the fair use rationales don't explain why the audio samples are necessary and irreplaceable in this article per WP:NFCC#10c. A lot of non-free media also needs to be reduced in size. The free media could also be moved to commons. I know this is all very pedantic, but for FA we really need to organise our media properly. I'll try to review the text properly soon. Papa November (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does Followmearound.com have permission to reprint myLaunchs articles? (ref 1) If not, the link should be removed (and be replaced with a magazine ref). I'm concerned at some of the quality of the sources as well. Who are myLaunch; are they a reliable source? CloudNine (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments More will be added as I think of them.
Remove all links to unlicensed reproductions of magazine articles on fan websites. That's infringing on copyright. Credit the sources just as if you were citing directly from the magazine.
This article is currently 70kb, making it the second-longest article under the scope of WikiProject Alternative Music. Try and make the prose of the article more concise. One suggestion is to remove the 'Solo work' section, as its tangential to the band itself. CloudNine (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need the chart positions in the Discography section (especially when chart positions in only two countries are listed). That's what the main Radiohead discography article is for. All you need to list are the studio albums and release dates. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some statistics to do with the page size, as the total can sometimes be misleading. Size (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js) of this revision:
Thanks for your comments. Atlantik (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some excellent work in this article. Here's some points that will beat it into shape for an FA nomination:
The opening paragraphs should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD (3 paragraphs, concise, accessible, vital information only).
The "In Rainbows" discbox section could be either completely removed or put into the album's article if it isn't already there. Similarly, it's probably best to keep release details out of the lead because knowing they plan to release a discbox doesn't really give somebody who doesn't know the band at all a vital piece of information on them.
The article is looooooong. Go through the entire article and try to reword any parts that are expressed in too many words. Try to make things leaner and more concise.
Actually, the current trend (with many alternative music articles at least) is to keep the Discography section as simple as possible, and then save the detail for the main discography article. (see Pearl Jam, Frank Black etc.) Adding a tabled discography to the article would not reduce its length. CloudNine (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a point well-made, so I'll strike my suggestion. ;) - Phorque 15:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently put up for a WP:GAC nom, which caused a flurry of editing activity and discussion on the talk page, and the GA was not successful. This Peer Review is to gauge where to go from here to best improve the article's quality, and elicit discussion both from uninvolved editors and those that wish to invest time in improving the article's quality. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…
All the copy has been entered and crosschecked, and has been relatively stable for a number of weeks. I'm in the process of self nominating this list to the list of featured list candidates and would appreciate any overall feedback before doing so.
This change will put the list in accord with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Numbers as figures or words, where an exception specifies not using numerals to open a sentence: rewrite the sentence "43 species have been recorded in Massachusetts." and the similar sentences in later sections either by writing the number as a word or by recasting the sentence so the number does not occur at the beginning, for example, "In the state, 43 species have been recorded." Fg2 (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to see another bird list on its way to FA!
I'd suggest you use a TOC similar to that used in many of the other FA bird lists (see List of New Jersey birds for example); it takes up much less room, and makes it far easier for a reader to quickly scan all the bird families at once.
Section headers need to be capitalized per WP:MOS—that is, it should say "Gannets and boobies" rather than "Gannets and Boobies". A number of sections need correcting.
The photo captions should be carefully reviewed; there are some instances of inappropriate punctuation (e.g. periods after non-sentences). There's also a move afoot in WP:BIRD to make country list photo captions more informational (see talk page discussion here), which would certainly be appropriate for this article as well.
The list needs a careful scan for random characters; there's an apostrophe after the scientific name for Ruffed Grouse, for example, and a period after the scientific name of Common Loon.
Per WP:MOS all numbers less than 10 should be spelled out.
The references should all be in "cite book" or "cite web" format—and the reference for the official MA checklist should be expanded so that it doesn't just say "1"!
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated it for a GA status recently (it failed, twice) and I'm unsure on what the article needs to do to be improved. Feedback would greatly be appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for set criteria for determining notability for inclusion. So far I have established a precise definition for parody (humourous pop culture references don't count) and excluded all material I cannot find a source for. But I think a more airtight form of sourcing may be necessary. Serendipodous 10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… in common with much of London, this is a sub-division of a sub-division. It's certainly important and has its own history. There are large elements of the How to write about Geo that are better dealt with the higher political unit (London Borough level). I'd be interested in editors' viewpoints on what should and should not be included in an article at this level, and what is needed to move this article forward.
Comment immediate things that occur to me from WP:UKCITIES is that distances from the centre of London should be included, and that notable people should not be presented as lists. The history section is referenced, but there are few throughout the rest of the article. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably say that the education section could be expanded and the transport section either expanded with a lead or condensed. Also note that not all of the references are actually references, just notes on the areas, so check these. Maybe use {{cite}} more. And obviously refernce more generally. Simply south (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I'll take a deeper look when I have more time. Kbthompson (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ScienTOMogy was reviewed and successfully passed as a Good Article, and a nomination for deletion closed a few days later. The result of the deletion discussion was a unanimous "Keep" (save for the editor that had nominated it for deletion). The article has remained stable since then for a little under a month now, and I wanted to get some input to see if there was anything else that could be done to touch up/improve the article's quality. Thanks,
Cirt (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As the semi-automated Peer Review in this case is rather small, I'm just going to copy it below, and address each point side-by-side when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
I've listed this article for peer review because as one of the focal articles of the Guns N' Roses Wikiproject, it'd really be nice to see it achieve GA or FA status...or at least, something higher than the Start classification it currently has. It's sourced, footnoted and has been through a lot of style and grammar checks since it was assessed at the Start level, but I'm not sure where it needs to go on the road to FA or how to take it there. Any feedback at all about improving the article, making it more interesting, et al would be greatly appreciated!
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input! I did look over the review, and have made some minor edits to the article. Unfortunately a lot of what is said there is not applicable to the article (for instance, all the conjunctions are in quotes and the proper names of songs and articles), but I've tried to use whatever I can. Any additional feedback would be appreciated! Thanks, DanielEng (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it meets the criteria for a featured list, but I would like to make sure that all the needs are met and I didnt miss anything. Any suggestions are very welcome.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article on an early 20th-century baseball club is well researched and loaded with references. It's close to meeting GA standards, and I hope to nominate an expanded version for FA status. For now, I'd appreciate any suggestions on ways to improve it. Thank you,-- twelsht (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I'm not sure whether the facts introduced in the first and second sentences should be reversed; which one is considered most important or best known?
DoneThe team is best known for winning the premier championship of the Ohio–Pennsylvania League in 1905,[1] and for launching the professional career of pitcher Roy Castleton a year later.[2] - add "for."
DoneThe ball club proved a formidable regional competitor and won the 1906 league championship before its dissolution in 1907.[3] - it might be helpful to add whether the team dissolved prior to 1907's season, or in the middle of the season. At least it gives you a few extra words in the lede...
DoneIn 1905, the club joined the Class C Division Ohio-Pennsylvania League, - I want to add a comma or some other punctuation there somewhere, it's too much info to parse too close together.
Done You may want to add how many teams were in the original season of the league (I counted 21), as the reduction to 8 teams is important in the next section.
Some teams left, and others joined; I hope the revised passage makes sense.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDespite this uncertainty over the club's record, its championship status was apparent, and the team became popularly known as "the Champs".[11] - I'm not sure "apparent" is the correct word here. I think you mean "not in dispute" or "uncontroversial".
Done The "Youngstown Champs" allusion at the end of the Formation section ends in a cliffhanger. Was there a team called "Youngstown Champs" in 1907, or was that same popular nickname given to another team then? (If the answer is in the prose, it was too tenuous and I didn't catch it.)
The Ohio Works team was popularly known as the "Youngstown Champs", a name that appears in contemporaneous newspaper articles. But the name "Champs" became officially associated with the team that replaced the Ohio Works. I hope the revised passage conveys this rather confusing point. I was tempted to leave out this detail but thought it would be helpful to researchers. --twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Um, 14 teams left the league, and there were only 8 left... but the first season only had 21? Fact-check needed here...
DoneEarly in the season, as the Ohio Works team prepared for a second game with the Zanesville (Ohio) Moguls... - I'd just remove the "(Ohio)" part, and bypass the redirect on the Zanesville link by linking to Zanesville, Ohio.
I removed the Zanesville link because the city was linked in an earlier section.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done"...We have no .350 batters on the club, but any man on it is liable to step in and break up a game".[11] - you may want to include a link to batting average there somewhere. While I know what you are talking about, keep in mind that not everybody knows baseball.
DoneAn article published in the The Youngstown Daily Vindicator in October 1906 stated that the local team ended the season with its third consecutive state pennant in hand.[14] - so they won in 1904? Why wasn't this mentioned earlier?
Winning the league championship and winning the state pennant were separate acomplishments, but this wasn't clearly indicated. I added language to make this point and restructured the paragraph. The league championship was much more important, so I referred to the state pennant at the end of the paragraph.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DoneOn August 17, 1906, Castleton gained national recognition when he pitched a perfect game against rival Akron... - link perfect game for football people (*ducks*)
Done The Youngstown team closed the season with an 84–53 record and won its second consecutive league championship.[3] - ??? Didn't you say they won their third immediately above? Or is there something more to this?
Hopefully, the revised passage mentioned above will prevent any confusion on this point.--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Okay, the dissolution section answers the question about the official Youngstown Champs team that I posed above. But the section follows the teams that played in Youngstown after the Works left the town. It doesn't follow the Works themselves into Zanesville and beyond, as one would expect.
Following this recommendation proved something of a challenge. I came across very little information on the Zanesville team, though enough to conclude that their performance was lackluster. I found more information on the Ohio Works' former manager, who eventually signed Stan Coveleski and Sam Jones to their first professional contracts. As you recommended, I removed extraneous information on teams that played in Youngstown after the Ohio Works' departure. I retained some material on the Youngstown Champs that seemed to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the Ohio Works' dissolution. Thanks, again, for the detailed recommendations! Please let me know if you have any further recommendations!--twelsht (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That was fast. :) The article is certainly impressive. I'd ship it straight to WP:FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to a request on my page. Not sure what else to say on this one. I am looking for ways to critique it, but it looks FANTASTIC as it is. This is a GA in flying colors. If you want my honest opinion, skip the GA and head straight to FA. There is little benefit (other than an easy Green Plus) that you would get from a GA review. This would pass GA in a heartbeat, and I can't see where a GA review would give you much feedback for improvement, if only because it is so good. And I say that myself as a frequent GA reviewer. This is well past GA standards already. If you are heading for an FA, this looks also quite close, if not exceeding, standards as it is. There are a few issues with flowery language (the one on "Youngstown's rich history" needs a rewrite, for example) but after a quick copyedit to catch those problems, this should be FA ready. It is scrupulously referenced, and it is fairly well written (except for as I note above). It seems quite comprehensive, given the team existed for less than 3 full seasons, and I see no obvious stability or neutrality issues. Well done! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Language problems seem largely fixed. Well done. Let me know when this goes to FAC. I plan to give it my full support! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am renominating this article because it has been totally rewritten since its last pear review and has almost no resemblance to the earlier version. It appears to be well written and of good quality. Zginder (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main flaws of the article is its unbalance and very narrow geographical scope. As far as I know, SAT is taken all over the world, and is accepted by a large number of universities outside US. This fact should be taken into account in the article, and at least mentioned in the lead. Also should be mentioned how SAT dates might differ in Muslim countries, how the results compare internationally... CG (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biases section is incredibly small and leaves something to be desired. Particularly for a test as important as the SAT, which has been so heavily criticized for its biases, this needs to be addressed in much more detail. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first detective fiction story, written by Edgar Allan Poe. I'm considering putting this up for good article review soon. If someone could check the writing in particular, that would be helpful. Also feel free to help me trim down list of Adaptations and Allusions from other works. The article is relatively short; please advise if I should expand on lead and/or plot summary. Thanks in advance! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thoughts:
Maybe the first mention of "rationcination" should be linked to Wiktionary, seeing as it's a terrifying word. It also needs citation as coming straight from the horse's mouth.
Reference 6 should be following punctuation.
Swedish Death Metal isn't the tidiest wikilink ever. I think it's Gothenburg metal or something like that. Throughout that section, albums should be italicised and song titles put in quotes.
Take a look at the external links section of The Mystery of the Yellow Room - the Wikisource link it prettier, and it includes a link to Project Gutenberg. I'd advise you do the same.
If there's a way to have the 'Works of Edgar Allan Poe' hidden by default, I'd go for it, 'cos it's fricken' huge.
I really didn't stretch myself, sorry. But every little helps. Seegoon (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it certainly helps! I hadn't realized that a typical Wikisource box wasn't on there, nor did I realize I hadn't set up a Wiktionary link for "ratiocination" (I had just done it for C. Auguste Dupin). I haven't found a relevant Project Gutenberg link, possibly because this was never part of a book during Poe's lifetime. I'm also not going to edit the template; I don't think the way it displays should be considered in a GA or FA review... and, if it is, "The Raven" passed FA with the same template and no comments about it. And I'm hesitant to put any serious work into the References/Allusions from other works section because... well, because I just don't care for it. I'd rather just cut it all entirely. Really, who cares that some "Swedish Death Metal" group referenced "The Murders in the Rue Morgue"? What are your thoughts (or anyone's) on deleting the whole section? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wonderful story - I took time to reread it. I'm still thinking about the organization of this article. Could you explain why you chose to order them as you did? It might help me. For example, I am unsure whether "publication history" should be so late in the article. I would also turn the "Adaptation" section into prose rather than using a list - such lists are generally discouraged. Is the "Allusions" section really necessary? Could these allusions be included in Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture instead?
My biggest concern, however, is the research. I am not sure that this article adequately represents what has been written on the matter by literary scholars. For example, when I put "murders in the rue morgue" into the MLA database, I got 71 hits. There seemed to be many helpful articles and books. I haven't begun to look through "edgar allan poe" yet. Doing more reading will allow you to expand the "Analysis" section, for example. Awadewit | talk 20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. I'll be able to respond more fully after my holiday break. Not sure what MLA database has on the story; I'm only using my library of books on Poe right now. As far as section ordering, I usually follow what's suggested by WikiProject Novels... though I usually do it from memory. I'll get back to this in a few days but thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest devising your own sections - let the research guide you. Editors tend to adhere to the WikiProject guidelines too rigidly. Each article should be custom-designed to convey the information on that topic efficiently and eloquently. Awadewit | talk 04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've completely removed the "Allusions/references from other works"... it seemed fairly useless to this article. As far as section headings and organization, I don't feel I'm blindly following a Project... I just happen to agree with it. For one, I sorta like the "Publication history" so low in the article; it seems more important to get into discussing the "Analysis" sooner rather than talking about how it was randomly republished with "The Man That Was Used Up." Other than that, what are you suggesting for organizing these sections? I think, maybe, "Inspiration" could be a subsection under "Analysis"... what do you think? Also, what research have you noticed which is missing? I've stuck with most of the main respected names in Poe studies, with the exception of Arthur Hobson Quinn (haven't gotten a hold of him yet) but if you give me a direction from what you've read I'm sure I can find it. I tend to use ink and paper sources rather than online, so that might be slowing me down. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering what logic you followed in setting up the article. I might do something like this:
Plot summary
Themes and style
Genre [Invention of the detective story]
Inspiration [some of this material I would place in the "Genre" section]
Publication and reception
Adaptation
Genre could even come right after "Plot summary" - obviously the discussion of the detective story is one of the most important topics in this article. It needs to be addressed with much care and with much fanfare. :) Looking at the material you have on the detective story, it seemed difficult to know where exactly to place it all. I feel that the organization of this article is tricky. Awadewit | talk 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MLA database has quite a bit on this story (as you know it is one of Poe's most famous and most important). I haven't read all of that material, but you should at least take a look at it to see what is there. You need to determine what the "scholarly consensus" is on the story. (Also, the MLA database points mostly to ink-and-paper sources, as you say. Literary critics haven't gotten around to publishing much online, yet. Alas.) By the way, how did you figure out who the major Poe scholars are? I'm always curious how people do this. It's easy for me to figure out who the major scholars are in a field because I can just ask a professor or fellow graduate stduent, if I don't already know myself. Awadewit | talk 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) I'm not sure I agree with most of your suggestions for section headings, to be honest (and no offense meant). I'm wondering if anyone else out there is reading this who would like to tune in. I'd prefer keeping all the articles on Poe stories as standard as possible for easy navigation between them. But, that's all I know. As far as who the major Poe scholars are, well, I've read a lot and have been a Poe scholar myself for years. I also work with Poe scholars and, as dorky as we are, we all chat and drop names. Certainly, when you're within a certain field, you know the relevant names! I guess with me, I couldn't tell you about known scholars of Melville, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Austen, or whoever... but I know Poe! Again, I'll look more into this stuff and your suggestions when I'm back from vacation. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will politely disagree with you on the standardization. Being a scholar yourself, you ought to recognize how impossible such a dream is. :) For example, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" initiated a genre, but other stories did not. To me, that means the article should foreground a discussion a genre in a way that other articles on Poe stories would not. I'm really not in favor of standardization for the sake of standardization (I was just saying this over that WikiProject Shakespeare, too - they wanted to have all of Shakespeare's articles look the same - the comedies, the histories, the tragedies). I think that standardization only leads us so far and being bound by it restricts articles.
I'm glad to hear that we have a Poe scholar working on the article. Finding appropriate research can be the most difficult part of doing these articles. (I apologize for explaining the MLA database.) However, it does still strike me as odd that there are so few sources in this article and is the best Poe scholarship really published in the Cambridge Companion or Bloom's book? Usually Bloom's books are of poor quality.
By the way, I'm a bit confused by your statement that you have been a "Poe scholar for years". Your userpage says you received a BA in American literature and that you are a graduate student in publishing. Are you a Poe scholar or a grad student in publishing? or both? or a bastard hybrid? :) Awadewit | talk 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never said I was interested in standardizing for the sake of standardizing... I just so happen to think that the current set-up works just fine and is not confusing at all (again, no offense is meant here and I hope I'm not being argumentative!). You make a good point about the creation of a new genre, but I think the "Literary significance and impact" section does the job just fine - a fuller discussion of the genre and its history can be in the detective fiction article. I wonder if there's a similar article to compare this with... And, certainly, Bloom isn't much-respected, but he only compiled this particular book of essays; he didn't write them. I wouldn't worry about publications as much as scholars anyway. Again, Hobson Quinn's research will be forthcoming, and (hopefully) J. Gerald Kennedy as well. As for my own background, literature is a part of publishing, so not sure where you're confused. I also didn't mean to suggest I was a full-time professional Poe scholar (not sure how I'd make enough money from that, but it sounds like fun!)... and graduate school only involves a few hours of my week; I do much more than attend a couple classes. Really, your confusion about a few simple userboxes confuses me. But, I digress... As for this article, I agree it could use more sources; it is definitely in its early stages (I hope you didn't think I was done with it already!). I'll keep building on it as resources are found or dug up. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think standardization for the sake of "navigation" is really any different than "for the sake of standardization", though. However, I have an open mind and am willing to hear your reasoning.
One of the reasons that I suggested renaming "Literary significance and impact" to "Genre" was because it focuses almost exclusively on a discussion of genre, therefore I feel such a title would be more descriptive and would emphasize the invention of the genre to the reader.
I know Bloom only compiled, but it is precisely his compilations that aren't respected. His single-authored scholarly books such as The Anxiety of Influence are respected. Questions have been raised about how he chose the essays for those compilations.
By the way, just for future reference, it might be best not to refer to yourself as a "Poe scholar" unless you say "amateur Poe scholar". To someone like myself, who is a graduate student in English literature, "Poe scholar" indicates someone in academia who spends at least part of their career studying Poe.
I look forward to reading the article again when you have added more material. Awadewit | talk 02:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment... not sure why a peer review became a discussion of my background, but I'll just say that "amateur Poe scholar" is not appropriate in my case. I'm just not particularly forthcoming with the details... Anyway, the only reasoning I can provide for the section headings and organization is that it seems to work. I haven't really been convinced otherwise. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to good article status. So far, the most obvious thing missing from this article is a picture, but I don't know of any good resources for free images of him. Other than that, I would like to know what improvements could be made overall to this article -- what parts should be expanded, re-worded, etc.
You mention that his mother sang back in the 1950s as a pre-act for some big names, and that she sometimes brought Collin and his brother onto the stage to sing harmonies. But Collin wasn't born until 1960, so how did that work?!
Any information about the family that's mentioned several times? How many kids? How long married and to whom? That sort of thing.
I think the WP:MOS discourages following a section header immediately with a subsection header, as you've done in Solo Career, where you've jumped immediately into the information about the albums. I'd suggest moving the first few sentences of the "In the beginning" subsection higher, and changing that subsection name to the name of his first album to match the next subsection. The same comment goes for the Mid Career section.
Sentences like the one saying he thought about giving up his music career for a factory job should be referenced. Where did he say that?
As for other information that would be good to include, some comments from mainstream reviewers about his style, albums, success, etc. would be appropriate.
You probably should get someone from the League of Copyeditors to do a walkthrough once you're done, just to fine-tune the prose. Good luck! MeegsC | Talk 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I fixed the info on the Sun Records artists (she sang in the 1950s, then became a solo artist in the 1960s). I haven't found much info on his family, or any mainstream reviewers at all, besides what's All Music Guide. It's so hard to find decent information on musical artists online, because you have to fight through a zillion lyrics/tabs sites, illegal download pages, All Music Guide copycats, and all that junk. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to find a print media interview if I were you. Is there a Country Music project on WP? Maybe someone there would have access to that... MeegsC | Talk 10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because… the artical needs other pairs of eyes commenting on flow, structure, and areas where more development is necessary. Additionally, sourcing and quality thereof.
I can only comment on style points, sorry - I don't know much about the topic, and surely someone more experienced than me is needed to comment on such huge article. Nevertheless, here are some points:
References and citations have to be fixed in most places. The <ref> tag always goes after the punctuation mark, not before, ie. Blah blah blah.<ref>blah</ref>, not Blah blah blah<ref>blah</ref>. See WP:CITE and WP:FN.
Another point about references is that because many of them are from the same books/articles, you may want to create a section called "References" and another called "Notes" or "Footnotes". List the appropriate books (ie. Davies', McAllister's) in the "References" and use "Notes" for the actual notes. Citing Davies, for example, would then look like "Davies, 508", not "Davies, op cit, page 508", and it'd reduce article size. And while you're at it, you may also want to arrange the list of references into two or three columns.
Some sections and quotations need references: for example, the section "Rebranding & "Leadership" 2006" has none, and (upon returning, he wrote of Hitler in the Daily Express as "the greatest living German", "the George Washington of Germany") in "Pre-War" needs a reference (not necessarily the exact article in Daily Express, but perhaps a book where it is quoted).
I really don't know much about the subject of the article, but I think many people will find it suspicious (ie. at GA and FA) that the Davies book is used so extensively. Sometimes the same page is cited for several paragraphs - perhaps there's some other material available? Some material distributed by the party itself, maybe?
Style issues unrelated to references:
For an article this size, the lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD: you have to provide a working summary of the article.
Dates have to be edited according to WP:DATE - ie. individual years should not be linked, there should be no apostrophes (1950s instead of 1950's), – should be used instead of a simple dash when talking about time periods, full dates should be linked, etc.
All "see also" marks at the beginning of the article and in sections should be preceded by a colon to create a space before them, and there should be just for any number of links. Ie:
"It was in this climate that the two groups met. " - which two groups? They're only mentioned in the lead, and the lead is simply a summary. You have to mention the groups in the first section before making such remark. (or perhaps I didn't understand the first paragraphs..) DONEDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "wrote Dr. Davies" remarks should be avoided, especially in this case, since Davies is your main source, and your only source for many statements. Try to reword his sentences instead of quoting directly, and simply add references as usual.
Generally, I wouldn't create such small sections as "Early broadcasting campaigns". They clutter up the article, making it harder to read, they will probably never be expanded, and they can be easily incorporated into other sections. NOTEDDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the extra columns doing in the tables?
In "Pre-War", "Author G A Williams " should be "Author G. A. Williams" DONEDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous bits and pieces of text that should either be reworded or rewritten entirely, very small paragraphs that could be incorporated into bigger ones, etc. In other words, copy-editing is required. Try requesting a copy-edit from WP:LOCE - that is, when the article complies with the style (and content) requirements listed on that page.
Speaking of those requirements, have you tried asking for help at the Wales WikiProject's talk page? Someone who is knowledgeable on the topic may add helpful remarks, and also perhaps challenge some of the statements in order to work the article up to NPOV (as I said, I don't really know anything about the topic to comment on that; I just assume that any political topic is bound to raise some NPOV issues, especially when only a single person works on the article).
Otherwise, you did a fantastic job for what seems to me an important topic. The length of the article alone is amazing! I know its not pleasant at all to go through all that material fixing the style issues (I've went through such things myself!), but believe me, it will give the article a much more professional look and feel. Best of luck with it, Jashiin 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Jashiin! I appreciate your review and will get started straight away on the edits. Some of the smaller sections such as Early broadcasting campigns I do have every intention on expanding (and did so with Census information, but I am awaiting a book on broadcasting in Wales by John Davies). But I take your point. The early sections are heavily reliant on John Davies, it is true. I will get additional sources to compliment and balance that. But Davies was so elequent! lol. Thankx again and Im getting started on this this weekend!Drachenfyre (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked this article, added references, wrote history, and now I want some feedback to see if I could take this article to next level - WP:GA and WP:FA, Thank you. —JA10Talk • Contribs 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article I was left with 2 questions. 1- What does the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge look like? It is mentioned several places in the article. If a freely licensed photo can be found, it would add to the article. 2-What is the significance of "Maintained by PennDOT" at the top of the route box? I've seen this on other articles, but I still don't get it. For the states I'm familiar with, all signed state routes are maintained by the state DOT.Davemeistermoab (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will try to find a picture of the bridge, although I don't know where to put it in the article, its kinda full. I'll see if I can explain in the lead why the article is maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation "PennDOT". —JA10Talk • Contribs 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the bridge itself is short, and could easily accommodate a picture. Granted, that is a different article from what you asked to be reviewed. IMO a picture would add to the article, even if linked rather than directly on the article itself. =-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map in the infobox is odd - it does not identify anything on it (I assume Route 73 is the red line). I am familiar with Pennsylvania geography, so I could figure out some things, but not much. Anyone not knowing about Pennsylvania would be leftclueless by the map. So the article / infobox needs a clear map (either put labels on this one, or get a new one). Also, why all the white space where New Jersey is in the map? If you are not going to show any detail there, just crop it - as it is the map looks off center (with all that white space on the right side). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°° 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the map isn't great and I knew that I would pose problems for the article. I've been trying to get a new one via WP:USRD/MTFR. But I don't know what's going on they should have finished the new map by now.—JA10Talk • Contribs 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping as it stands right now will not work since the infobox has a predetermined map size ratio. I'm working on improving this map this week. 哦，是吗？(User:O) 04:06, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach featured status. Since I started the article a couple of months ago, it has been expanded by a lot of people and become a topic of importance, owing to the current political crisis in Belgium. I think it will be particularly instructive to any reader to have a featured article available on Wikipedia on this topic.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review - The article looks good, but there's still some major problems. The article's size looks okay, but needs waaay more citations, especially if there's going to be expansion. The other problem I came across was the prose; several sentences are very "clunky" and/or confusing. I'd suggest getting a copyeditor to go through the article and rewrite it. Several sentences are also too short and give a stop-start feeling to the article and the opening needs to be reworked significantly from its current state. Towards the centre of the article, it gets a bit listy. FAC goers don't really like bullet point lists, so turn it into workable prose. Finally, it's generally not a great idea to pictures before the text (IE, the first two pictures of the article are to the left). It might be wise to shuffle them around. I'd be glad to help, but I know practically nothing about the subject and as you may or may not know, I have another article which I've been prepping with another editor for a couple of months now, so I'll limit myself to commenting on the article rather than actually editing it. Drop me a note about my comments or if you've fixed any and I'll pop aroudn and see if anything else needs doing. The article's on the right track, but get out many more books and references, add their information and especially cite the article's text - 80-90% cited is reasonable, but I strive to find citations for 100% of the article. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will inform you as soon as I've finished implementing your advice. I think this article will expand a little bit more, as I'm a novice on Belgian history and politics, and it may take a while before I can satisfy the requirement of the article being comprehensive to the topic. Thank you for responding so quickly, K a r n a (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very precise and topical article. While I have only given it a cursory look. my interest is piqued and I will return for a more in depth look. At first I thought the footnote section was a bit long and wordy but, realizing the linguistic dynamic of the region involved, it soon became exceptable. In fact, when I considered the potential readers the length made sense. Good luck!--Buster7 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get this article up to FA status. I am not sure how this article can be improved, but if anyone has any advice then it will be most welcome.
The reception section is underdeveloped. Instead of referencing the "Green Wing newsletter" (at British Sitcom Guide, which is no more a reliable source than Wikipedia) you ought to reference the original publication directly (e.g., instead of sourcing the Ian Johns quote to BSG, source it to The Times (and say "Ian Johns of The Times...") )
Merge the alternate ending section with the production section
A primary sources (the episode itself) is fine for a plot section but it doesn't hurt to use a secondary source. However, sourcing the plot to "Green Wing Special" when the article is on the same topic seems a bit weird. Consider excising the plot sources altogether or finding a written description elsewhere to reference.
A couple of stylistic suggestions:
I'd lose the subheadings in the plot section and just head the plot routes with "in the second plot strand" or similar
Add {{Infobox Television Film}} to the top right corner, slap the title card in there and lose the DVD cover.
The cast section seems a bit out of place just sitting at the bottom. Perhaps move it below the plot section and add the main cast?
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to need a general copyedit, I noticed some issues particularly in the production and reception sections ("The views of critics was...", "Some thought the special concentrate...", etc.). I also question whether the cast list is necessary, was the garage attendant a major character or was the actor a particularly special guest? You might consider merging notes about significant guest appearances into the production section or adding {{Infobox Television episode}} and including the guests there. I would also recommend adding information on who wrote and directed the episode either in an infobox or the production section. Best of luck with your FA run. Stardust8212 02:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively revised, rewritten, and supplemented this pre-existing article. The "Appraisal" section is entirely new, and so is nearly all of the "Revisions and variant versions" section.
Well, before you undertook this revision, the article only had a plot summary, so way to go! However, I think that studying some GA and FA drama articles might guide you in your development of the article (e.g. The Country Wife, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet). I noticed that, so far, your sources have all come from the internet. With a play like The School for Scandal, you are going to have to invest in serious library time, as the best scholarship on Sheridan's plays is not available on the internet. I would start with something like The Cambridge Companion to British Theatre, 1730-1830 to get a solid background. It will also have a bibliography that will guide you to other books and articles on Sheridan's works. We want to be sure that wikipedia's articles are based on the best scholarship available.
This research will also help you conceptualize more sections, such as "Themes" and "Style". There is already some material in the article that gestures towards this, but it is not arranged to help the reader find it. Again, looking at articles that are more developed and doing more research will help you structure these sections. I would also suggest cutting down on the plot summary. We want the article to primarily be a description of the interpretations of the play rather than a plot summary. Plot summaries don't really make for interesting reading, anyway.
I hope these suggestions help. Let me know if you have any questions about them. Awadewit | talk 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Awadewit. I'll have to look for this book when it is published. (When I clicked on the link, it said "Not yet published - available from December 2007." I know that publishers tend to roll out things on different timeframes in different regions, so it appears to be not yet available where I am.) Again, thanks. --MollyTheCat (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it is available. Academic books do not have different "roll out" schedules. There simply aren't enough buyers to necessitate such a thing. :) Awadewit | talk 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this as well.--MollyTheCat (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, good job on the work you have already done. The below will seem like criticism, but that's merely because the good parts leave nothing wanting. So please don't let these points disappoint...
Prologue - forgive me if this is a silly comment, but is this usually performed? In other words, in performances of the play, does someone normally get up on stage and read the praise? It seems to be addressed to the audience...
appears to confer with Lady Sneerwell - rephrase "appears", otherwise I was thinking "he only appears to confer with her, but actually they are..."
In general, you seem to have broken down the play in a very dry "stage directions" style, which is rather hard for this humble usually-prose-reading mouse to comprehend. I recommend rephrasing aiming at a reader, rather than giving all the "Act 2 (gezundheit); Scene 2 (and raised 1); enters; appears; exeunt omnes; exit stage left bearing bowl of fruit balanced on tip of nose" stuff. For example, you write "Mrs. Candour enters, and soon after Sir Benjamin and Crabtree, bringing a good deal of gossip with them. News of the imminent return of the Surface brothers' rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies is discussed, as well as Charles's currently dire financial situation." - instead I recommend something like - "They worry about Charles's dire financial situation, and whether the imminent return of his rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies will relieve it." as that is the important point, not when who enters in what scene, surely. You may also want to describe even more of the apparently important points - why is Charles's financial situation so dire?
"ruined by [her] extravagance."; "the fashion," - are these very short quotes really necessary? Surely we can write that Peter thinks he will be ruined by his wife's extravagant spending, the exact words don't seem important enough to copy exactly, unless they became a catchphrase, or are often cited exactly or something.
Instead, how about including some quotes demonstrating Sheridan's wit? The reviewers go on about how witty the lines given to the characters are, but we don't have a single example. Surely there are some signature lines that immediately identify the play to those who know about it, we should cite a few of those. For example: "To be or not to be, that is the question", or "Wherefore art thou Romeo?"
Sir Peter praises Joseph's high morals, but Sir Oliver suspects that he may be a hypocrite, and decides to give the libertine and spendthrift Charles a chance - who may be a hypocrite? Peter, Joseph, or even Charles?
Lady Sneerwell confides to her servant Snake her plan to undermine Charles Surface's attempts to woo Sir Peter Teazle's ward Maria (with help from Charles' older brother Joseph) - Joseph is helping Charles, or Sneerwell? Again, recommend rephrasing with less stage directions style; we, the readers, care more about what happens, than how it is described to us. "Lady Sneerwell plans to undermine..."
Charles, entertaining his raucous dinner guests, raises a toast to Maria. - why is this particularly important now? It's established he loves her at the top of the plot. I apologize, but I find the whole plot section hard to read, there are so many minor events that seem to be unconnected, it's rather confusing. Can the less important ones be left out?
In comparing editions of the play, one will find several relatively minor textual differences. - "One" is jarring here. How about: "There are several relatively minor textual differences between editions..."?
Because, as one recent editor has put it, "The School for Scandal is the most intractable problem Sheridan set his editors,"[7] editions of this play can vary considerably. - Whoah! Just a few sentences ago it said the differences were minor!
It may be significant that in Johann Zoffany's portrait of Robert Baddeley as Moses, we find that - again, apologies for being so dense, but I don't understand why it is significant. And even if it is, how does some portraitist's mistaken impression of the play reflect on the play? If I draw a picture of George Bush with a cucumber up his nose, surely that reflects more on me than on Bush. Please explain.
But in the hands of a talented director and cast, the play still offers considerable pleasure." - just remove. That's a sentence that can be given about any merely good play, and this is apparently a great play, so it can be assumed.
Actors Ada Dyas - Irish actress as Lady Teazle - er - what? Surely she wasn't the only one to ever play Teazle. Was she the first one? If so, say so... and say also why that was particularly important. I personally don't recall that the first person to play Macbeth was that important. The John Gielgud line in the same section is much better at explaining this. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of the article does not appear to be written in a neutral tone, paying special attention to the section titled "Advocacy" which appears to be a collection of links, whose content is not used throughout the article, and only purpose seems to be to attack the company. I'd like some outside views and opinions.
Also, I removed the advocacy links as they all seemed frivolous. I would also suggest either removing the self-published references, or finding better third-party references to replace them. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I looking to bring it up to good article status like its parent article, Burger King. I would like others suggestions on improving it, all are welcome as I really benefited from the suggestions made by other editors when I was improving Burger King
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the translation of the featured German article de:BDSM. It has been copy edited by User:Jeffpw.
The missing content from the older :en version was mostly integrated, additional references have been added.
Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to Good article and FA on :de, I hope this review will help to move it to an higher level.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been subject to terrible soapboxing issues, edit wars and personality conflicts. The original title was Sexual slavery in Angeles City, and it soapboxed heavily. With the cooperation of several (speaking loosely) impartial editors, it was moved toward encyclopedic quality, but never became "good". The original editor dropped off for a few months during an extended edit conflict with an opposing editor.
For a few months this article has been WP:OWNed by the opposing editor, who deleted much information deemed unflattering to the city of Angeles, including substantial sourced information, often contrary to Talk page consensus, typically for specious reasons that had already been disputed on the Talk page, ending in this version, which also had soapboxing issues. This editor was sufficiently aggravating as to drive away the impartial editors.
Two days ago, the original editor has returned, resulting in this version. Hopefully this is progress. We need some guidance before the edit warring resumes. Big issues will be:
Thanks,
edg☺☭ 13:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 418 metres, use 418 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 418 metres.[?]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working hard to bring it up to meet all of WP's quality standards, which is difficult with such a divisive subject, with strong biases and POV in both directions.
I would like input on how this article could be further improved, as I feel it would be a real achievement to get an article like this to FA status.
Re: Photographs. It is surprising to me that the choice of photographs for this article, even in the sections addressing cruelty, do not give the slightest indication that foxes might suffer. MikeHobday (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just point out that this has been discussed on the article talk page, predominantly initiated by this user. The consensus of users was that it did not add encyclopaedic value. Owain.davies (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that over-rides any discussion from more experienced editors here? I certainly lost the vote on the article's talk page, but I'm not sure that's how featured articles are drawn up. MikeHobday (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started to address points listed. MikeHobday (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because the editors feel at a loss for what else can be done to improve the quality of the article to get it up to GA status. Any input would be much appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach at least A-Class status. It has been expanded by a lot of people since it reached good article status.--Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is to have the article ready for an FAC by mid December, and I think it is close. Either way, any comments and feedback are more than welcome. -- Scorpion0422 03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the first sentence refer to "Simpsons" as opposed to "The Simpsons" - why is "the" not italicised and bolded?
"These segments usually involve the family" - could "the family" be linked to an appropriate article on the Simpson family themselves?
"Treehouse of Horror episodes are immensely difficult for the show's staff." - my initial reaction to this sentence was that it felt clunky. Maybe change it to "The writers [and animators, or whoever] regard Treehouse of Horror episodes as particularly difficult", or something similar.
I think "Monopoly" should be italicised, seeing as it's a featured article and italicises itself in said article. Also make sure to keep this consistent in the merchandising section.
Traditions
"The warning in the first THOH episode" - "THOH" should be italicised or removed - it's the only time this initialism is used in the entire article.
"Marge's warnings became a burden to write as the years went on. There was no warning for third and fourth Treehouse of Horrors, but it was revived for "Treehouse of Horror V". After that, Marge's warnings were permanently dropped[12] and the writers didn't make any attempts at reviving them." - this is sluggish.
"The Tombstone gags were easy to write in the first episode, but like Marge's warnings, they eventually got harder and harder to write, so they were abandoned." - this has been written as though you are one of the writers of the shows. Bear in mind the perspective of the reader.
"Another part of the reason the tombstones were dropped was because" - this seems to go on a little longer than really necessary.
"There were no wraparounds for "Treehouse of Horror VI" because they had been cut to make more time for the segments, and for "Treehouse of Horror VII", the writers just did not bother." - careful with your tone here, you sound a tad apathetic.
"Former executive producer Sam Simon left the show during the fourth season and ever since has been credited in the shows opening as "Sam 'Sayanora' Simon"." - I think it might be worth explaining why; not everyone will know what this translates as.
"The scary names became such a burden to write that they were cut for "Treehouse of Horror XII" and "Treehouse of Horror XIII", but there were many complaints on the internet and Jean realized that the fans quite liked them, so the scary names returned." - again, casual tone from a skewed perspective.
Production
"Do a ctrl+f and search for "treehouse of horror" and "the simpsons". Every time you come across one, ensure they're italicised. I'd expand this rule to even references.
"The Treehouse of Horror episodes are difficult to write and hard to animate" - similar to what I said in the first section, consider your perspective.
Reception
"In 2006 IGN.com published a list of the top ten Treehouse of Horror segments, and they placed "The Shinning" from "Treehouse of Horror V" at the top, saying it was "not only a standout installment of the annual Halloween episode, but of The Simpsons, period."." - first, you don't need a full stop before/after the quotation mark at the end (keep it consistent throughout) and secondly, this needs citation.
I hope this helps. Seegoon (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have the points from the Semi-Automated Peer Review, or Seegoon (talk·contribs)'s points, been addressed? If so, please note what has been done to address these suggestions, here below. You can use {{done}}, or just comment on it, or something like that. This will make it easier to keep track of. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, everything has been corrected. -- Scorpion0422 16:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback from other Wikipedia users.
Firstly, because I believe this article deserves some better attention and just basically needs improving. Secondly, to see if my edits (current and future) of the Today (Australian TV program) article could perhaps make this article become a Wikipedia:Good articles or a Wikipedia:Featured articles. I would also like to receive posts from others, on what they think about the article, what needs improving and change, and also what content is good to stay.
Thanks,
Tjkirk 11:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's deffinitely not FA material yet. It's clear for grammar, some copy-editing would be nice. More inline citations and expanding and/or merging of the shorter sections will be required. Otherwise, the page seems stable, though the images may need checking out (can't help with that, not an expert on the subject), neutrality and broadness also seem to be covered, and that's about it. Mind you, I'm not at all a frequent reviewer, but those are my thoughts. —May the Edit be with you, always.(T|C) 13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
put the refs after the periods, not before
it's 25th anniversary; However, it's rival Sunrise - remove the '; it's means "it is", its means "belongs to it"
The show also has regular daily Poll Questions and Hot Topic segments, which is a chance for viewers to send in emails, sms, and log onto the website and post their opinions. - wikilink or explain "sms", and for that matter explain more about this - does the show respond to viewers on the air in real time as each post or email is received, does it gather feedback over a dayrespond all at once on the next day, does it choose what to respond to, does it only respond to a few?
Why did Liebmann leave then return? That seems interesting enough to explain - more money, did he want to do more news and less fluff, did he not think the show would be successful?
"retire from the stresses of breakfast television" - breakfast television doesn't seem like it would be that stressful, it's not Fear Factor - want to rephrase? If he moved to a different show, specify; if he retired completely, specify that.
"Following her court case against Network Ten" - whoah - that's again something interesting that should be explained
"comments from the media and viewers that she should be sacked" - why? Because she laughed nervously? Specify.
"the female co-hosting duties" - does it say somewhere that there have to be one male and one female co-host?
in the early nineties, hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. Grimshaw was followed by Tara Brown - give some specific dates, please
due to budget cuts by the Nine Network, Today on Saturday was cancelled. - cite this important fact: who says that it was budget cuts, and not poor ratings, or some other reason?
"25th Anniversary" section - seems like a lot of space given to one show. Wasn't there a 20th, 15th, 10th anniversary show as well?
Many sections seem like lists of names, rather than just text. Understandably we need a few lists of names, but not this much. Flesh out with actual prose, please.
Competition - is Sunrise really the only competitor? What do the other channels air at this time?
While, in Melbourne alone ; Even though, the name - commas misplaced
In the last three years, - give specific years, we don't know if this will be magically corrected every January 1 from now on.
streetside studio - what is this?
Remove most or all of the "see also" section, they're better served by existing inline wikilinks in the appropriate sections. --AnonEMouse(squeak) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not neutral in the slightest. It reads like a blatant puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash. Some specific points:
It seems as if distasteful information about "Osho" is pushed down into a "Controversy and criticism", whereas this info would be better off incorporated chronologically into the article itself, and expanded upon, instead of briefly mentioned in passing in couple lines.
The immigration violations are covered in one sentence. This was a major United States Federal Government investigation. This needs to be elaborated upon, instead of just skimmed over as if this was a minor incident. See [8], and [9], [10] for some more info that is barely covered in the article at all.
Several legal cases and cases from United States Federal courts are not covered at all. These should at the very least be mentioned and summarized within the article. To name a few notable ones:
United States of America v. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, et al.
In addition to the bioterrorism attack, the first in United States history, which is only covered in eight words of the entire article, the other incidents listed briefly, (serious and criminal misconduct by the commune's management (including conspiracy to murder public officials, wiretapping within the commune, the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician), conspiracy to murder a United States attorney is not even mentioned or discussed at all.
In summation, coverage of the above extremely controversial issues is glossed over, and barely discussed. These sections of the article are grossly in need of expansion, unless editors wish for the article to read like a praising hagiography piece which lauds over its subject and skims over unimportant details like conspiracy to murder federal officials, and bioterrorism, all of which are heavily covered and available in both government sources, books, media/news, and reputable websites.
Having had a major hand in revising much of the article earlier this year, I have for some time been aware that it relies too much on direct evaluation of primary sources, rather than on the available secondary sources. So I had planned to re-write much of the article, based on the available academic literature. – As for the comments by Curt Wilhelm VonSavage above, the space given to Sheela's crimes in the article is roughly equivalent to the amount of space accorded them in the most recent scholarly treatment of Osho's life and work (Judith M. Fox, Osho Rajneesh). In this context, it should be noted that the American authorities never brought any indictments against Osho in connection with these crimes or even named him as a co-conspirator. To the extent that some of the crimes were directed against persons who enjoyed Osho's closest trust, that would have been absurd anyway (Sheela got twenty years for trying to murder Osho's personal physician, a man that Osho made one of the main administrators of his estate at the time of his passing).
Ralph Flanders was an American mechanical engineer, industrialist and Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Vermont. Flanders used his experience as a successful industrialist to advise Vermont and national commissions on public economic policy. He was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy for his sensational, but largely unfounded, accusations that many public figures, especially those in government, were Communists.
I have substantially upgraded this article to include Harvard references to his autobiography. I would like it to be considered as a Good Article within Project WikiProject Biography. It has already been rated as an A-Class article of Mid importance in WikiProject U.S. Congress. HopsonRoad 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy frijoles! This article, formerly very nice, is now awesome! It is said that the "primary objective [of this review process] is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement." This in fact has already been going on in the case of Ralph Flanders, as HopsonRoad, RedSpruce, and I discussed the referencing system. Well knock my socks off, this article now has some of the better referencing found anywhere on Wikipedia. Countless thanks, HopsonRoad, for donating the time to make this article so great. This is the kind of thing that will make Wikipedia sublime.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well written, organized and solid referencing. Not to mention the great picture research and usage. I am also happy to see an article where wikilinking is done judiciously, with the purpose to add context. Thank you HopsonRoad for a really well written and polished article. CApitol3 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Geared Bull, for taking the time to review this article. Based on other input, I’ve done a bit more style editing.HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-written article for the most part. It assumes that Senator Flanders was right on communism and that Senator McCarthy was wrong -- the traditional view.
[New scholarship] cites new evidence, in the form of Venona decrypted Soviet messages, Soviet espionage data now opened to the West, and newly released transcripts of closed hearings before McCarthy's subcommittee, asserting that these have vindicated McCarthy, showing that many of his identifications of Communists were correct. It has also been said that Venona and the Soviet archives have revealed that the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was larger than many scholars suspected,[81][82] and that this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy.
Some responses to these viewpoints have been written by Kevin Drum[83] and Johann Hari.[84] Historian John Earl Haynes has also argued against this 'rehabilitation' of McCarthy, saying that McCarthy's attempts to "make anticommunism a partisan weapon" actually "threatened [the post-War] anti-Communist consensus," thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping.[85]
Of the many individuals that figured in McCarthy's investigations or speeches, most were already suspected of being Communists or at least of having leftist politics. There are several cases where Venona or other recent data has confirmed or increased the weight of evidence that a person named by McCarthy was a Soviet agent. However, there are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent.[86]
Below are listed the names that various authors have alleged were "correctly identified by McCarthy." As the footnotes show, in almost all cases this assessment is questionable or demonstrably incorrect.
Solomon Adler[87]
Cedric Belfrage[88]
T.A. Bisson[89]
Lauchlin Currie[90]
Gustavo Duran[91]
Theodore Geiger[92]
Haldore Hanson[93]
Mary Jane Keeney[94]
Owen Lattimore[95]
Leonard Mins[96]
Annie Lee Moss[97] --Senator Symington's defense of Moss has been refuted.
Franz Leopold Neumann[98]
Edward Posniak[99]
William Remington[100]
John Carter Vincent[101]
The article might should have a paragraph or two saying that Flanders underestimated the communist conspiracy even on the assumption that McCarthy overstated it.
There is another book which exonerates McCarthy written by a conventional American liberal about 2000. I unfortunately cannot remember his name but will try to find it.
This scholarly book rejects the conventional view on McCarthy, written by a liberal: Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator by Arthur Herman. Ann Coulter's book is more opinion and informal; this is fully documented. If true, Herman has found a whole generation of faulty scholarship on McCarthy.
Thank you for taking the time to review this article.
You suggest that the article "assumes that Senator Flanders was right on communism and that Senator McCarthy was wrong." I feel that either assumption would be a POV. In augmenting the article, I drew on published sources available to me. If you have published sources that you can recommend to further describe how others reacted to Flanders's assessment of McCarthy's approach to fighting communism, I feel that they should be included for completeness. You could leave such suggestions at Talk:Ralph Flanders.
You suggest that "The article might should have a paragraph or two saying that Flanders underestimated the communist conspiracy even on the assumption that McCarthy overstated it," especially in light of Venona. I’m unaware of any literature where is there a statement about how large Flanders estimated the internal Communist threat to be, so it would be impossible to state that he underestimated it. The record is clear that Flanders felt that the external Communist threat was extremely serious—so tremendous that it would leave the US and Canada isolated as free nations—and that he felt McCarthy’s actions distracted the nation from it.
I feel that estimation of the internal threat of communism is a more appropriate discussion for the Joseph McCarthy or McCarthyism articles. The scope of this article should be limited to what Flanders thought and whether others agreed with him.
I have rephrased the lead paragraph that you edited to state: "He was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had made unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. Ultimately, his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate." The first sentence is undisputed, the second and third ones have stood the test of time in Joseph McCarthy.
HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at this article, Miranda. You will find at Harvard referencing that page numbers are optional, not required. In this case, I’ve used them where a passage is buried in a book, not when casual perusal of a reference would quickly find the discussion.HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review by N-J Seigel, non-Wikipedia reviewer[edit]
I still am hoping someone will look at this article with the depth of a college professor—still giving the high grades, but also making further, specific remarks/suggestions about length, organization, and style.
Although the content, as a comprehensive article, is undeniably excellent, and a major contribution to Wikipedia, there remain punctuation errors, repetitions and long sentences, which need work.
As to length, it is easy to justify including everything. However, a little bit less might be better. I think some deletions would improve the article as a whole, and make it a better "read"—for example, leaving out all of REF's Senate committee assignments.
Posted for N-J Seigel by HopsonRoad (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at this article, N-J Seigel. I have received your independent style edit and have implemented most of your suggestions in the next revision. I have received no comments from other reviewers suggesting issues with length, beyond the need to expand the lead paragraph.
An impressively comprehensive article. Flanders' views on liberalism and conservatism, as further described at http://www.vpr.net/episode/31630/ may be of particular interest to many readers. My concern is just that it is a rather fluffy. For example, most short biographies of politicians wouldn't note that "He wanted to signal to the world at large that all nations “should work together toward human betterment...". Not because it isn't true, but simply because politicians say those sort of things all the time. The "Doing “what no one else was willing to do"" section might be another example. A more critical, skeptical tone would give the article more gravitas. I note that according to the Vermont Encyclopedia, "His voting record, more popular with conservative constituents than that of his colleague George Akin, reflected his business orientation." That's the sort of observation that is very useful, and inclusion of something like that would help diversify your sources, which at present are rather overconcentrated to Flanders' own book. You could also cite Time's August 2, 1954 article ("The Dispensable Man") which says that Flanders won the support of a group of 23 top businessmen, labor leaders and educators for the censure motion, but the article should not be lengthened further, in my opinion.Bdell555 (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Your observations have been helpful to make the article more suitable for Wikipedia. Here is what I have done in response to your suggestions:
Because the views on liberalism and conservatism, as further described at http://www.vpr.net/episode/31630/, were quotations from Flanders's autobiography already referenced in the article, I simply added the link.
To address the "fluff" factor, I have deleted the "Doing 'what no one else was willing to do'" section and added the Vermont Encyclopedia citation in a revised section, Senate record and committee assignments.
I have added the Time reference to the section, On Joseph McCarthy.
I understand the concern for an over-concentration of sources in Flanders's autobiography. Fortune wrote a puff piece on his pre-senate career. There are diverse news articles that pertain to his McCarthy role. I'll look into adding an American Society of Engineers biography on Hartness as a source pertaining to his engineering career. I'm afraid that, for a minor historical figure, that's probably the best we can do. In addressing your concerns, I have shortened the article slightly.
Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a well written article about a famous sportswoman. I believe it could reach GA-status.
Nergaal 13:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks very good. A few brief comments...
The WP:LEDE doesn't summarize the article as a whole. This would disqualify you from GA status.
People argue about whether page numbers should be included in citations. I won't go into their motivations for arguing; I'll just say that the way I read WP:CITE makes me think that page numbers should be given. One way to to do this when using the footnote style of citations is to have two separate sections: One for the full reference of the book (publisher, title etc.) and one for the author's name, year and page number. See Georg Cantor for an example. As I said, some would argue that this is unnecessary. I think they haven't read WP:CITE closely.
In cases where no page number is possible or where the info is taaken from the same page of a book, you can use "named references." See the section about naming ref tags on Wikipedia:Footnotes. I did one for you as an example: The International Gymnast magazine references (six of them).
While I'm thiking of that website, it mentions that Nadia was "named one of the Athletes of the Century." I didn't see that in the article, did I miss it? I think it is important info.
Ummm, that's all. I didn't see any WP:MOS issues other than a double hyphen that i corrected — but I'm not a WP:MOS expert. Good luck! Ling.Nut (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, book sources need page numbers, and I have serious doubts that this is a reliable source. I made some MOS and other changes; please refer to my edit summaries and inline comments.[11] I also have doubts that Gymn-forum is a reliable source. I suggest you improve the sourcing, and improve the formatting of the sources (per WP:CITE/ES) before approaching GA. Also, read up on WP:DASH, WP:MOSDATE and MOS:CAPS#All caps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sonatas and Interludes is one of John Cage's major works for prepared piano. I've been working on articles on his compositions for some time. I've listed this particular article for peer review because there's a passage here about the nested proportions technique, which is kind of difficult to explain briefly without using the score. The latter is not available: not only because the work is just some 60 years old, but also because to illustrate the technique I'd need a score of an entire sonata from the set, and thats clearly not fair use. So I did my best to explain the technique and I'm not sure about how well I did it. I asked for comments on the talk page of the classical music wikiproject, and earlier asked for comments about my Cage articles on the talk page of John Cage, but so far noone responded, and I take it that few people are interested.
The passage in question is in Analysis->Structure, right under the big table. I'm afraid at least some basic knowledge of music notation and/or music theory is needed.
And if anyone would be so kind to review the entire article, I'd be very grateful.
Sorry, but I like minimalist music and I still have no idea what any of that meant. Mind you, it's hardly intended for the layman, so maybe my dimwittedness is irrelevant. But lo! Here is some non-useless input:
"The purpose of music, according to Sarabhai's teacher in India, was "to sober and quiet the mind, thus rendering it susceptible to divine influences,"" - citation needed.
Reference 17 is the wrong side of punctuation.
Generally the prose is superlative; I breezed through the article with great interest. I'd say it lacks a section on what the piece itself influenced, but sourcing such information would be a drag, to say the least. And a picture, somewhere, would add some flavour. But I'm hardly setting you down the path of FA-ness with this sage advice. Best of luck with it all. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! I've fixed reference 17 and added references for the quote you mentioned. I'll think about adding an Influence section; trouble is that after Cage almost noone wrote anything major for prepared piano. Jashiin (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a graph explaining the proportions - could you look at that explanation again and tell me whether it is any clearer now, with a graph? Thanks in advance. Jashiin (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a delightful article! I have played classical piano for 25 years, so perhaps the article was easier for me to follow than most people. I have just a few comments.
The lead needs to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. It needs to reference all of the major sections of the article and be a mini-article just in case a reader doesn't go on. Imagine someone reading it who is just clicking from another article.
I didn't really think about it; I was under the impression that the lead has to be one, maximum two paragraphs for an article of this size (21k). I'll try to work on it, but its kind of difficult to reference all sections in just one short paragraph..
I think you can make a longer paragraph or even two paragraphs. The point is not rigid adherence to the one-paragraph rule, but a good introduction to the article, right? Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there available images of Cage or a prepared piano? The article looks a bit plain without any images.
What about audio clips from the piece?
Unfortunately, no Cage photographs qualify for fair use (they're all less than 50 years old..), and audio clips are, to my knowledge, forbidden to use because the score is readily available and anyone can create a recording. I might be wrong, but this thing happened a while ago in Johann Sebastian Bach (see Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach/archive_3#Unfree_audio_removal). Personally, I'd love to add a couple of audio clips from good commercial recordings. As for pictures of a prepared piano, I was unable to find a free one.
However, I'm thinking of adding a couple of bits from the actual score, since images of that kind are permitted (see actual pages scanned in Olivier Messiaen, which is a FA). I'm thinking a part of the table of preparations and an exceprt from one of the pieces in Cage's handwriting. Would that improve matters?
Yes, that does sound like a nice addition. I am not well-versed in the copyright of audio clips. I have just heard them on other classical and popular music pages, so I thought it would be a nice addition here, if it were possible. Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you care about the WP:MOS niceties, I noticed some tiny deviations, but these were truly minor - WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:MOS-L (on the date links).
Could you point out exactly which parts of the article do not conform to those parts of the MoS? I tried fixing certain small bits I found (see my latest edit), but I'm not sure if those bits are the ones you meant.
Usually single years are not linked and usually punctuation comes after the quotation when what is being quoted is not a full sentence (perhaps this is at WP:PUNC). Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Cage was fully aware of the implications of this: certain sonatas feature interplay between two versions of one note, others place special emphasis on particular notes, still others are very dependent on particular note combinations, etc. - spell out your meaning for the reader - "etc" requires the reader to have knowledge - they are coming to the article for the knowledge
The sonatas have very little to do with the standard definition of the sonata form (there are no primary or secondary themes, development sections, recapitulation, etc.) - again
Fixed both passages: removed the "etc." from the first (decided I've already mentioned all there was to mention and added "etc." as a nice touch :), briefly explained the sonata form (see the same edit.) Is this better?
Very well-written. I understood the description of the piece, but I see the previous reviewer did not. Cage is difficult to explain without technical terms. Perhaps explaining one sonata in detail with a chart? I hope this is helpful. Awadewit | talk 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! I'll try my best to make a chart - trouble is, the only chart I saw explaining this technique was in fact so complex that I couldn't figure it out even though I understand the technique :) Jashiin (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that doesn't sound like it would help, then, does it? That was my only idea on that front. Sorry. This is a difficult piece to explain. Awadewit | talk 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a graph of Sonata III, which is explained in the article - could you look at it and tell me whether it improves matters? Thanks. I've also addressed other points (ie. expanded the lead, added an audio example, etc.). Jashiin (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much re-written this article since the last peer review and believe I have addressed the vast majority of the points raised. Looking for GA as soon as possible, along with any advice and help to get it up to FA. Thanks. --Jameboy 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of choppy sentences with too many commas - I'll show you how to reduce commas by switching clauses.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, strange situation because I've already said I'd review this for GA but in parallel we have a PR, so I'll leave my comments here and see what happens, bearing in mind I'll review with minimum GA and beyond in mind (thinking of FA in other words...)
Aye, first time up... I'll be better organised next time and have more idea what I'm aiming for!
Move citations to comply with WP:CITE, immediately to right of punctuation.
Done One obvious one changed, one questionable one adjusted. I assume this doesn't apply to infoboxes, tables and lists, which don't have punctuation.
Avoid prose within the parentheses. If it's worth being there, flow it.
Done I think the only parentheses remaining at the start of the lead and also in the Statistics section, where I found it hard to rephrase without them.
"This made Albion virtually an automatic choice..." - says who?
Done It was William McGregor. I have re-written the sentences(s) from the original source. Also the William McGregor article has more detail on this topic.
Be consistent with season descriptions, you have 1910–11 and then 1919–1920.
Done
Yuck, World War I - English should refer to this as First World War. Same with its successor.
Additional information needed These are the actual article titles, so are you saying this is an Americanism? Is "World War One" acceptable, i.e. dropping the roman numeral?
No, I'm completely objectionable to the American phraseology here. We should stick with Second World War and prevent the redirect to World War II by piping. Seems odd to me to make it sound like a Hollywood sequel.... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those articles are incorrect then! British English supports "First World War" and "Second World War", this is a British English article so that's what I think.. But frankly, it's not that big a deal, just anomalous. Next up you should change the Colours section to Colors! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...this particular "Double"...." - needs further clarification - you mean winning the FA cup and being relegated? It's not clear.
Done FA Cup and promotion. I've clarified this and provided a separate cite (from 2007) that this is achievement is unique.
"...hailed as "The Team of the Century"..." - this is some claim. I'm sure the citation helps but you have to justify it in the text.
Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.
"...there followed the club's longest ever continuous run in the top flight of English football, a total of 24 years." - cite it please.
Done I've cited the 24-year unbroken streak. Haven't been able to cite it being their longest run in the top flight so have taken it out. This is annoying because it is definitely correct (see the graph at the foot of the article), I just can't find it explicitly written anywhere. I can't find a way of citing it that wouldn't be OR. D'oh. Someone just posted on my talk page... seems I may have miscostrued OR slightly, so may be able to cite this after all.
En-dash - I saw a 1972-1973 instead of a 1972–73 there....
Done
"..of 1500–2000..." not keen, perhaps "between 1,500 and 2,000..."
Done
Heed WP:HEAD for headings - "Notable Fomer Players" -> "Notable former players"
Done
In that table, link the positions, consider reformatting so it looks pleasant, make it sortable.
Additional information needed Have linked the positions and made the table sortable. What do you mean by "looks pleasant"?
Well, little things like not letting the names go to two lines, consistent position naming, for two periods with the club separate with newline rather than a comma... There's scope for improving the appearance, that's what I meant, sorry it wasn't specific enough! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'd look at making this and the manager table consistent, little things like column widths, {{sortname}} templates for the mangers, just to keep the article looking professional all the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed The names are all on one line and look fine, but then I have 1440x900 screen resolution. Any idea what is the lowest/highest resolution that a Wikipedia article should cater for? The name sorting template doesn't include a non-breaking space as far as I can tell, so I may need to widen the columns. --Jameboy (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the notable players table definitely has broken names on my screen, Safari, 12" iBook... Plus you can use the nowrap template outside the sortname template. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done See what you think.
Wowwwweeee, one manager for 1520 games. Incredible. (That's just an observation, no action required!)
Remark: He was definitely in charge for 46 years, but I haven't yet independently verified the stats, I've only used soccerbase. What I need to do quite soon is get the managers sub-article (list) to FL by verifying the stats against several books I have, then use the verified results in the main article. This is probably a barrier to FA for this article until I complete this task, not sure about GA though.
Ensure citations relating to multiple pages of books have consistent "pp", not just "p".
Done
That's it for now. Let me know if I can help more. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your excellent feedback. I've also added more images to the article and re-arranged some of the existing images. --Jameboy (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seem to be almost FA class but needs some edits to it. The article article recently passed GA. Please review truthfully and
thanks for the review. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalkReview Me! 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I always wanted to get this to FA status, but GA first and are very unsure if this article has any potential to become GA since I have done everything I could. Therefore a peer review would be a great idea.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1991 Slint album, within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. I've been working on this article since early November, where I found it in really bad shape ([12]). This is currently nominated to become a GA. I'm looking toward an eventual FAC nomination for this; any comments to push the article in that direction will be helpful. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished a revision based on feedback from a failed GA review. I would like to know if these problems have be remedied and find out what other issues remain. I know that some of the grammar is still weak but I've been looking at this article for so long that I need some fresh insights.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Blabbermouth.net reviewer Done Kaye commented "with little of the complexity of Mudvayne or angularity of Nothingface and much more of the full-on, pedal-to-the-metal style of Vinnie Paul's previous work", however, he said the songs "Star" and "Thank You" border on musical cliché.[13]" - Split into two sentences.LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A DVD titled Below the Belt was released on November 13, 2007, and featured performance footage from the making of the album, first studio sessions, coverage of the band's world tour, and personal interviews." - Has there been any critical reception for this DVD? IGN maybe? LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on IGN and i don't see any professional reviews., yet
"Paul felt two guitarists...", "passing through 30 cities..." - this should be consistent. It should be either "two" and "thirty", or "2" and "30".LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Ruhlman believes Hellyeah is not a notable variations from members previous bands.[12]" - Variations? A band is classed as one entity, so is therefore a variation (ie. singular). LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get a comprehensive list of faults and areas needing improvement or revision before I go making major changes. I'd rather not rewrite the article from scratch or make major changes without a feedback from others. I'd like to get these changes made and this article nominated for FA status. I know it needs more sources cited, but what else can be improved?
The best way to find out what is missing from the article is to do research, research, research. Read a lot about Michelangelo - become a mini-expert yourself. Then you'll have a good idea about how to reshape the article and what elements of his life should be emphasized and de-emphasized. Hard work, but ultimately very rewarding. Awadewit | talk 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well spoken (or typed, I suppose). I am actually reading a couple books on his life right now. My biggest concern is that I can't possibly read every book about him and it seems that the number of citable sources is more important than the information cited. Can there be a Featured Article with well-cited facts from a select few sources? -- VegitaU (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that you cannot read everything published on Michelangelo - I expect it would fill a small building. :) The most important thing is to discover early on who are the most reputable scholars and which are the most reliable biographies - what is the "standard" biography of Michelangelo? One way to do this is to ask scholars, if you have access to them. Another, more tedious way and the more usual way, is to start looking through the bibliographies of reliable books on Michelangelo (those published by academic presses, for example) for which authors and books are referenced the most. That list will give you a place to start. What are you reading right now? I would expect that you would have to read books on Italian Renaissance painting and sculpture as well as on Michelangelo himself, if you haven't already.
I think that there can be featured articles that use a few, select sources, but I think that the best featured articles are those that attempt to draw on a wider variety. See William Shakespeare, for example. I and another user have undertaken the monstrous project of rewriting the Jane Austen page. This is what our bibliography looks like right now. Michelangelo is a very big topic - do you have someone to work with? lots of free time? reserves of patience? One or all of these is probably a necessity. :) I'm really happy to see someone is tackling this article - I love Italian Renaissance art. I might be able to offer a few recommendations for what to read, if you want - I did take a series of classes on the topic as an undergraduate, for whatever that is worth. Awadewit | talk 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to get this article to FA status soon. It reached GA status some months ago but time did not allow me to make the push for featured status. If you look at the version before I embarked on a major rewrite you'll see the article has been transformed substantially. I'd like editors to point out any faults, major or minor, and provide suggestions for improvements. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first reference refers to the title of the book in question. I dont really think "Suleiman the Magnificent" needs sourcing as a title, it is a commonly accepted name imo. I changed the quote from King Louis to Lewis. As for the dates, from what I see most seem to be in month and day format, are there any I'm missing? With regard to Damascus affair, tbh even I'm not familiar with this and dont know who added it, but your right the explanation does not seem very comprehensive, I'll have to look into it. As for your last point, yes the wording "up to" is quite poor, I'm still thinking how to reword this. Thanks for the comments (and edits), --A.Garnet (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree re: page number, I've removed the tag. I think you misunderstood what I meant about Lewis/Louis, anyway I've made my suggested edit. I think you're right about the dates, my mistake. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because, this is one of the greatest hard rock albums ever recorded by one of the greatest hard rock bands of all time, it is a Diamond album according to the RIAA. This article deserves to be FA.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments that could help this article get up to GA are welcomed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Edgar Allan Poe's very odd essay Eureka: A Prose Poem. Looking to see if it seems "complete" or if something is lacking. I'm also a bit concerned that the flow of the article isn't clear or logical. I may put this up for GA review after this PR, so any suggestions are helpful and welcome! Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think the article is currently far from GA status. Its a fascinating topic (and its great of you to pick it up!) and the article is very interesting to read, but many kinds of problems are present. Here are some points that might be helpful:
First of all, some work on the lead is needed: references (there's just one, and most things there need references) and wikification (German, American, 1848, naturalist, etc.).
Wikification throughout the article is also required, ie. Romantic (in Influence and significance), crescendo, various dates, etc.
Most titles should be italicized, not put in quotation marks; ie. Ligeia instead of "Ligeia", An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe instead of "An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe", etc. See WP:MOS#Italics.
A typo? - "non-fiction" in the lead vs. "nonfiction" in the Overview section.
It may have to do, at least partly, with my own likes and dislikes, but I think the major problem of the article is that much work on the text is needed to make the prose flow more naturally (and you did say you're concerned about that). For instance, in the "Overview" section the sentence "It is Poe's attempt at explaining the universe.." really belongs into the second paragraph, not the first. Because the first one deals with technical details, dates, etc., the second deals with the content of the work. Grouping paragraphs like that (ie. by topic) sometimes pays off. Or consider the "Critical reception" section, which has two paragraphs, one of them barely over one line long - it'd read much better and look much more logical if there were either two large paragraphs (if you can find more positive reviews, or break the first paragraph a little bit earlier - maybe at "Even though.."), or if you somehow incorporated the positive review information into the first paragraph and leave the section at one paragraph. Still another technique that might help is using various figures of speech to make the text more natural, ie. (in the same section), instead of "Some critics, however, respond favorably to Eureka. French writer Paul Valéry praised it..", consider something like "Some critics, however, respond favorably to Eureka. One notable example/For instance [the celebrated] French writer Paul Valéry praised it...", etc. - just don't overdo it.
At several points the sentences lose their subject, so to speak. Two examples:
In the lead: "Adapted from a lecture he had presented, in Eureka Poe describes his intuitive conception of the nature of the universe" - sounds like Poe is adapted from a lecture. A better way to say the same thing: "Adapted from a lecture, Eureka describes Poe's intuitive.."
In Analysis: "Like his theories on a good short story, he believes the universe is a self-contained..." - sounds like the theories believe this. A better way to say this: "In accordance with his theories on what constitutes a good short story, Poe believes.."
Etc.
Since the work is in public domain now, perhaps one or two large quotes (those that go under the "blockquote" thing) could be used, instead of numerous bits and pieces quoted inside the text. It'd make the article look better, facilitate reading and provide the reader with some actual examples from the text (rather than just short bits). To facilitate reading even further, perhaps making a list of things Poe suggests would work nicer (in the Overview section, second paragraph), like a summary of the most important ideas Poe discusses.
An image (of the cover of the first edition, for example, or of a newspaper page with an unfavorable review, or of a poster announcing the lecture) would spice things up a bit, if its available anywhere.
Oh and, when was the actual essay written (ie. when exactly in 1848)? The article doesn't say anything about that.
Hope this helps! (this is my first review :) Good luck with this and other Poe-related articles - I noticed you're working on those. Jashiin (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time for a full response but, quickly, about italics... the manual of style on Wikipedia (and, really, anywhere that uses the English language) does require that short stories go in quotation marks, not italics. So, "Ligeia" et al will stay just like that. :) I'm also worried about over-wikifying, which is a criticism I seem to see the most on PR, GA review and FA reviews that I've been through. I'm also not sure about adding significantly long quotes... Most of Eureka is relatively incoherent, so the short quotes seem more helpful. I'm glad you agree that the article doesn't have such a great flow... I'll see what I can do about that. Anyway, thanks for giving this such an in-depth review; it is greatly appreciated! I'll be back after the holiday, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, never had any experience with short stories, my bad! Sorry! As for over-wikifying, I don't think a few extra links would hurt, especially with things like "Romantic". Finally, its your choice whether to include one or two long quotes from the text: I just thought they might give the reader a better understanding of the style and content of the essay, plus, in my eyes having lots of small bits of quotations sort of clutters up the text. Jashiin (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I get what you're saying about short quotes cluttering things up a bit. I'll put some thought into it and see what I can do! I'll go through again and see what additional wikilinks I can throw in. Thanks again for the tips! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightdreary (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently reviewed and passed successfully as a WP:GA. The reviewer was even kind enough to suggest some helpful pointers on how to improve the article further, and I implemented them all save one - this Peer Review. I also added another source to a different book review since then, and will continue to do copyediting. Looking for suggestions from previously uninvolved editors to the article, on how to improve its quality status.
Thanks,
Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will begin to address some of these points, and note them here, below. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] - Done - There was only one instance of this, in the infobox, and I fixed it. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] - Done - All full dates within the article text were already wikilinked, other full dates inside of citations may not be. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. "it has been", "apparently" - might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] - Done - I did a check through the article, and the first instance "it has been", is backed up by a citation to the United States House of Representatives. The second instance "apparently", is part of a citation, it is part of a title of a book. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Have found some more citations and expanded a bit on the overall story of Jiraishin, with an added section for a movie supposedly based on it.
Thanks,
Ominae (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article with User:Ceoil since late summer with the goal of having it reach FA status by October. Uh, then we both got really busy. Despite the delays, we're pretty far along now and hope to have it at FAC soon. I've listed this article for peer review because I want some feedback, particularly about the grammar. Virtually all sources on the band have been consulted, so there's little that can be added to the bio.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'll leave comments here as I find time to, so feel free to keep this PR on your watch list. Comments;
"Curtis's suicide "made for instant myth".[35]" This isn't opinion, but is the opinion of Simon Reynolds. The opinions of critics have been attributed elsewhere in the paragraph, and so this opinion should be attributed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Two biopics have been released that dramatise Joy Division on film. 24 Hour Party People (2002) presented a somewhat fictionalised account of the rise and fall of the Factory Records, in which the members of Joy Division served as supporting characters." - Has there been any critical commentary on the portrayal of Joy Division in this movie? May be good to check reviews of the film. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently reviewed and successfully listed as a Good Article. The GA reviewer said it was an enjoyable read, but could use some minor improvements in the area of copyediting. I'm looking to get some input from a fresh set of eyes as to how to best improve this article's quality status. Thanks,
Cirt (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will begin to address some of the points from the semi-auto Peer Review, and note them here below. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] - Done - Lead is already sufficient. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] - Done - This was a good suggestion, I added a free use image to the top of the article. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) - Done - Not sure if there is an appropriate infobox for this type of article, but if I do find one I'll add it later. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] - Done - All full dates within the article text are wikilinked, though there may be some full dates in citations that are not. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] - Done - I went and looked through the whole article, but it looks like footnotes are already located after punctuation. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because…it's currently in a GA nom and could benefit from a peer review to pick up any problems with the article at this stage that I or other editors may have missed. Many thanks, Dick G (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of putting this up for GA (don't think there's enough content/potential content for a FA, personally, although feel free to say if you disagree) but was wondering if there's anything that needs addressing first.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris, another nice piece of work, some comments...
Don't wikilink Kent twice in the first paragraph of the lead.
Done
"...redevelopment work was still at a very early stage, and many of the ground's facilities are still of a temporary nature" - tense change.
Done- changed "was" to "is", as the point I was trying to make is that the ground has still hardly been developed at all. I was there for a match last season and it's currently pretty much a step 7 ground plus a couple of pre-fab stands that look like they were borrowed from the local golf course.......
"...the club has ambitious plans..." - sounds a bit POV to me. One man's ambition is another's daily routine... (just ask Abramovich...)
Done - changed "ambitious" to "extensive"
(Not a specific comment but why not upload the stadium photo (and any others) to Wikimedia Commons?)
hadn't thought of it but will look into it, I'm not very familiar with Commons
"1986–?" for Thanet Vikings probably needs sorting out, as should the dimensions. On that point, you have "as part of the agreement the Hartsdown pitch was altered to exactly match the size of that at Highbury." - does that help?!
fixed the dates for the American football thingy based on re-reading a source which I think says they only played there for one year. Try as I might I can't find a source for the current pitch size. Point taken about Highbury, but I'd wager the Hartsdown pitch is no longer the exact same size as it was in 1934.....
"Margate's home" - Margate F.C.'s home surely?
Done
"...was soon added, soon to be followed..." - two soon!
Done
"covered accommodation" - is accommodation the right phrase? Perhaps it is...
I also think it sounds a bit naff, but I can't think of a better word. I've changed it to "spectator accommodation" which hopefully doesn't make it sounds quite so much like there's a B & B behind one goal :-)
"...prestigious friendly match..." explain why it was prestigious.
just a reference to the fact that it was against West Ham really, but as I can't really quantify that I've removed it
"now ramshackle North Stand" - why?
Donereworded. I remember going there in the 1980s and the North Stand was barely standing, but I've replaced the rather vague word "ramshackle" with a sourced reference to the fact that it had actually been condemned
"...dragged on for three years, mired in issues..." a little POV.
Done
You link Conference and Conference National to Conference National which may be a little confusing to the uninitiated.
Done - changed the first one to Football Conference, Conference National was probably inappropriate there anyway, as at the time the term did not exist and the Conference was just a single division
"As the redevelopment work is still ongoing at Hartsdown Park, the stadium's current facilities are limited." - not sure about this. Old Trafford has been redeveloped (not on such a scale) but it's had plenty of work done and kept its facilities. Do you get what I mean? I'm not sure there's a logical connection here necessarily.
reworded - what do you think? I've made it clearer that it wasn't just a cosmetic redevelopment - all bar one terrace was in fact razed to the ground and only the bare minimum rebuilding work has as yet been done....
Space before . and [22].
Done - removed the space before ref 22, was that the only one?
Use {{convert}} for 0.7 miles (so it goes to metres as well).
Done
I think you're probably right, GA definitely, not sure if it could expand enough for FA. Hope the comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers as ever for your spot-on comments!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take it GA now. You'll be waiting for a while (unless you want me to review it), but it'll def make GA. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for GA. If you want to review it that would be cool, but please don't feel under pressure to ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mysore is an Indian city in the state of Karnataka. This article has undergone several rounds of copyedits, and has all the major sections that are typically present in an Indian city article. The article is also equipped with a variety of images related to various aspects of the city, and finally it is well referenced.
I request the review comments from the community, so we can improve this article further and fill in the loop holes, if any.
Thanks, KNMTalk 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metric units have been used. also give english equivalents (miles etc). Although have not gone through the article thoroughly, it looks to be all set for FAC. Cheers!--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on History section: "Following rendition, Mysore became the capital of the kingdom in 1881 when the British handed over power to the Wodeyars."—Which rendition?
"Most present-day historical landmarks, and the organisation of the city of Mysore, were inspirations of the Wodeyar kings and their Dewans. Plans for organised development of the city exist from around 1904. The period between 1910-1945 is considered important in the modernisation of the kingdom"—Language needs improvement. can be shortened, because the three lines convey similar meanings, and to some extent, vague.
History is incomplete. Anything on independence movement? Where is the post-independence history/recent events?
Done. Have covered the Indian Independence movement. Important events in post-independence have been covered in the remaining sections. Again adding them in this section would be duplication -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph in history tells about the palaces. No need to discuss palaces at length in History. Move some things to culture.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up Hi! I am sorry I could not go through the article. Please feel free to strike off my comments that have been attended to. One question. You say that important events post-independence have been covered in other sections. Can you please specify what other events have been covered? I see the political parties mentioned, and the Kaveri water dispute mentioned. IMO, Kaveri dispute should be in History section. because, usually the history section should contain notable events till date, and Kaveri dispute definitely should be there. Has there been any notable riot/calamity/political upheaval post-independence?
The significant events covered are Kaveri riots (now mentioned in History section as well), establishment of a Mysore city corporation, hosting of National Games and downturn/growth in industries. I want to keep the Kaveri riots in Demographics section since I feel it is relevant to that section. Political upheaval is more related to the politics of a state, I could not think of anything that is related to the city of Mysore. I have added some events in the History section that got good attention from media and the public in the recent past. I need to add citations though, which I will do tomorrow. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Can you dig out the crime stats of the city? In demographics, can you find out the percentage religions? Indeed, the last two sentences in "demography" (maybe with some modifications)is better suited for "history". There are some WP:MoS issues regrading the use of endash.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some crime stats. I need to source the data on percentage religions. I have used the autoPR javascript to correct MoS issues. Do let me know if you see any specific MoS issues -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick example of MoS issue: "The annual budget of the Corporation for the year 2007-08..." it should be an endash between 2007 and 2008. And I did it. I could not go through the whole article :( Hope to go through it in the FAC :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Amartya. For wikilinking single years, I am following this guideline which says Stand alone months and days of the week should generally not be linked. Stand alone years do not need to be linked but some users prefer it. I am however open to removing the wikilinks if it is not considered as a good practice. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is not necessary for FA, it will be great to have all the red links turned blue. AmartyabagTALK2ME 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to take Carnivàle, List of Carnivàle episodes, Characters of Carnivàle and Mythology of Carnivàle to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates (making it the first TV show to possibly achieve this ranking) as soon as the GAC subarticles have successfully passed their candidacy. Copyedits are always welcome, especially for grammar where my judgement as a non-native speaker may not always be optimal. I have already addressed some recent anon comments that suggested clarity improvements for Mythology of Carnivàle, but I wonder now if someone (who is possibly not so familiar with the show) may see further things to improve that I may have grown blind to notice over the last few months of extensive wiki-editing. Thanks for any comments, – sgeurekat•c 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reference consistency. I know this is likely to be quite dull but I notice that some footnotes (in Mythology of Carnivàle but possibly elsewhere also) with quotes use the cite episode template and some just give a link to the episode in brackets. Since these links are now redirects to the episode list I think the references definitely need to be made consistent and use the cite episode template. I'll help out changing this if I have time.--Opark 77 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did this on purpose to not blow the ref sections more than they already are in size. When an action or series of events is important, the full episode information is provided. If I sourced directly from a quote, naming the episode is IMO just a gimmick and the reader will find exact production details behind the episode link. If there is a set of quotes from the same episode, I used the full episode information instead of linking to the Episode list repeatedly. But I see no harm in adding the full {{cite episode}} information again as my way may in fact appear random. – sgeurekat•c 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A copy edit will be needed before FAC and I will happily provide an invested pass. I think a request at the league of copyeditors is also worthwhile. However, perhaps an A-class assessment from WP:TV would circumvent the need for this. I can provide this but perhaps someone less involved should be requested first. I'd request the copy edit now and wait for the GA candidacys to close and then request reassessment if passed.--Opark 77 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have some more sourced ideas that may enrichen Characters of Carnivàle, and tons of third-party material for Mythology of Carnivàle#Reception, media interpretation and legacy trying to make sense of the show (which I will probably not add as 30 people saying they didn't get the meaning of the show is not necessarily better than 10 people saying the same.) My experience with the Copyeditors League with Carnivàle is that for the time it takes them to get to an article, it has minimal results (this is not a complain!), but maybe your copyedit was just to darn good to begin with. I am constantly doing minor passes here and there, but my final-final pass will be based on what this peer review will bring up. Thank you for your comments and work on the articles. – sgeurekat•c 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I have added these ideas now that I had before. I have also copy-edited everything in Characters of Carnivàle a few times except for the short character descriptions that I am still trying to bring in line with List of Carnivàle episodes. This way, WP:SS applies and I wouldn't have to source every character plot detail again. I guess some more copyeditting brings Characters of Carnivàle surprisingly close to WP:FA. – sgeurekat•c 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2. I have restructured the character article some more and I'm also done with copyediting. I am so pleased with its current state that once it is GA and this topic has achieved FT, I don't see much left to do (except minor copyediting) before taking it to FA. I don't have any current FAC plans for the mythology article though. – sgeurekat•c 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wikipedians who have tried to improve the article, It's apparently reached A status. Now we need your suggestions before nominating it as a featured article. Thanks a lot. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked into the article too much but I did notice many areas with over-referencing. I understand the controversy of the subject and it is not a major issue but it makes the article harder to read, plus its unnecessary;two would suffice for particularly controversial sentences/passages. I will look into article some more soon. --Al Ameer son 06:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read this article (well at least the first half), and I found that it is remarkably neutral, a great achievement for such a controversial article. However it lacks in many things: akward article structure, missing important information, and too many lists. I'll try to give you some suggestions about how to improve it.
The "Background" section is odd and ill-defined. It starts with the current political situation of Hezb, then its social activities, then its history with Israel, then its relation. I think this section serves as a summary, but It is badly organised, and I don't think this practice is good.
There is no clear "History" section that presents how and why Hezbollah was formed and its development. Instead they are scattered throughout the article in the "Ideology", "Political" and "Military activities".
During the last years, editors of the article have found that this is a better way to describe the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section should be divided as in the related article and describe briefly and in this order: The Origins, during the Lebanese civil war, 1990-2000, and after Isreali withdrawal.
related article is part of this article which was moved to reduce the size of it. I think we can add a brief description to the background. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Political activities": I'd like this section to describe the political history of Hezb, why it decided to join the political life (unless you put it in the "History" section)
That's an important issue and we can describe it in brief.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The political section should be much larger than that, describing Hezb electorate, regions of influence, relations with Amal...
We need a Lebanese editor to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What this article really lacks of is the Lebanese views of Hezb and how it evolved, and this applies to each community. How it was seen by Shiites, how it was rejected by Christians, then gained support after Hezb-Aoun alliance, how the druze and sunnite community was supportive before March 14...
Again, we need a Lebanese editor to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Military activities": It's too listy, we should find a way to write everything in prose.
A small description about Al-Manar programs, to show that it is a normal TV station with its news, programs, sitcoms...
I disagree. There's a separate article for this reason.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to include at the end a brief list of important Hezb people (leaders, MPs, ministers)
We can make a template. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article needs a major revamping in order to describe a political, social and military organisation like any article describing a Western organisation. However, I cannot but appreciate the tremendous effort Wikipedians made to make this article as neutral as possible. Keep up the great work. Thank you. CG (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In brief, I would agree with you if the article weren't 90kb.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out - all created in a single edit, and then put up for PR two minutes later!!!!!
You may recognise this format from such existing FLs as Gillingham F.C. seasons and Ipswich Town F.C. seasons. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do (other than create articles on the remaing 10 redlinked players) before this one goes to FLC too......
Comment - just wondering, but do you reckon this list would pass the FLC criteria? I mean, it's a good quality article, and follows the model of most other seasons articles that have reached FL status, but half of the top scorers aren't wikilinked, and a lot of the ones that are linked are redlinks. – PeeJay 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones which are redlinked I plan to create article on in the next 72 hours or so as per my comment set out at the top of this page. The others don't meet WP:BIO as they never played in the Football League, so will never have an article to wikilink to. I see no reason why this should impact on a FL nomination - the featured article guidelines don't state that people's names can only be mentioned if they have their own WP article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only asked because I faced a similar objection when I first put Manchester United F.C. seasons up for FL status, except in that case it was about links to individual seasons, rather than players (though I'm sure I would have been confronted about that too if the top scorers hadn't been linked to). The person who raised the objection that time used Featured List criterion 1.a)1.
“
the list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria
”
Still, I'm sure you won't hit this obstacle. – PeeJay 14:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the only way that criterion could be used to object in the context of an article like this would be if the person was claiming that all "XXXX F.C. seasons" articles were merely lists of top scorers, which simply isn't the case. Anyway, like you say, we'll see how it goes if I do put it up....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look and that criterion's only an example of one type of FL anyway..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments A single edit? Conveniently ignoring the 293 in your sandbox before copying it across ;-)
Lead. Their stay at this level saw the team forced to groundshare with other clubs. Might be better to just say them rather than the team. Also, you may want to split that sentence, and possibly say why they were expelled from the Conference (link to footnote already used in table).
We've disagreed before about linking to yyyy in football (soccer). I still wouldn't.
List. As to blacklinks, I'd have thought WP:WIAFL Criterion 1.a.3 "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles" was satisfied beautifully.
It's a pity the Amateur Cup/Trophy heading forces that column so wide.
Do you really need to have the Other competition entries in small? Using normal or small print makes no difference to the line height, and having just tried one of the wider ones (1952-53) in normal size, there's only a slight increase in width beyond that forced by the column heading and it became much clearer to read (on a smallish screen at resolution 1024x768).
Notes. Other than where shown, details of Margate's performances in other competitions from 1989 onwards are not available. Why?
In general, I like your informative footnotes, they're an important part of this sort of article/list.
Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than where shown, details of Margate's performances in other competitions from 1989 onwards are not available. Why?
Because the source I used that gives full details of Margate's participation in all the "other" comps (www.margatefchistory.co.uk) only currently gives that level of detail up to 1989. I've spoken to the webmaster and he says he does plan on bringing it up to date in the future, but I don't get the impression it's on his "very urgent" list..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'll address your other points at lunchtime ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed that wonky sentence in the lead, re-sized all the small text, and removed all the XXXX in football links (especially as I hadn't even consistently used them!!!). I can't see that there's much that can be done about the Amateur Cup/Trophy column....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you write up to Brian Barwick and get it renamed something short and snappy like FA AmCup? Seriously, it does look better (to me) with the normal-size text, thanks. Struway2 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chris, good work as usual, a few banal comments...
Couple of statements in the lead which I think ought to be referenced really, namely...
"...the club was forced to resign on financial grounds and return to the Kent League."
"... drawn-out and problematic redevelopment work at their Hartsdown Park ground, which led to the club being expelled from the Conference National in 2004 for failing to meet the division's stadium requirements."
Those statements are sourced from the "history of Margate" page listed at the bottom, are specific inline citations needed? Wouldn't it look a bit odd with just those two facts having inline citations out of the whole article?
I'm not too bothered. The problem comes from providing verifiability to provided sources which are books. I'll leave it for now, we'll see if anyone makes a fuss at FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a tad confused - no books were used as sources for this article.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. I'm a tad tired. Ignore me. I'll wind my neck in. BY all means ignore that and, as I said, we'll see what's mentioned at FLC! Sorry for being a toolkit...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on the two consecutive uses of "premier" when describing FA Trophy/Cup.
Done
Any reason for no matches in the 23/24 and 28/29 seasons (and the other couple)? Probably worth explaining if possible.
Done
Not really affecting this article but was surprised Billy Mays' article didn't mention his Margate career, particularly with that 58 goal haul in 32/33!
I'll add that in at some point, I just threw a stub together for him so as to remove the redlink from this article.....
Actually I've just double-checked and I miscounted - he actually scored 60, including one match where he scored 6, two 5s, five 3s and seven 2s. I think most clubs these days would be happy with that sort of performance from a striker :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTheDude (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some teams would be happy with 60 from the whole team! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Group stage" should be "group stage" for consistency with other notes.
Done
10, 25, 34 and 36 footnoes need full stops.
Done
Not much more to add to a very extensive and thoroughly good article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty damn hot for a non-league outfit. Top work. Just a few minor points to add.
The wording of this sentence, Their stay at this level saw them forced to groundshare with other clubs due to drawn-out and problematic redevelopment work at their Hartsdown Park ground, feels a bit clunky, particularly saw them forced to. I know what you mean to say, but had to read it three times. Maybe it's just me. My best suggestion would be to turn it round and say something on the lines of During their stay at this level, they were forced to groundshare with ...
Done
I split up the column Other competitions in my list Bradford City A.F.C. seasons to avoid big yellow or silver boxes and also align progress in each competition. I'm obviously going to say this, but I think it looks tidier.
That's quite a big job, but I will get onto it over the weekend. It's a good point
A few references need a full-stop at the end.
Done
Other than that very good work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed one potential issue with this. In order for the W or RU cells to be coloured solely for the respective competitions, each competition would need to be on its own row. Now, this isn't a problem in most of the table, but for the 1936/37 season I'd need to have two rows in the league columns but three rows in the other comps column - any idea how to compose the table in such a way that one row in the FA Cup column, two rows in the league columns, and three rows in the other comps column all line up.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's really a load of work to do here. It's better first for you to expand this article as much as possible, following what the Manual of Style for football club articles suggests, and then asking for another peer review once you made it all. A prosed history section is probably one urgent things to do, together with an improvement in number of sources, whereas it is better if you remove the "notable players" list (why exactly these players and not others?).--Angelo 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added why the players are notable, if you do not think that they are notable please delete them.--Sunderland06 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ydone "later to its current appellation." - odd wording, and if it was renamed again then it should be cited.
Ydone Try, if possible, to place citations immediately after punctuation.
Ydone Date ranges should use en-dash.
"... was later purchased by Sanmarinese and Italian entrepreneurs." needs citation.
"San Marino Calcio is the only Sanmarinese team allowed to participate exclusively at the professional level in the Italian football league, though another team, A.C. Juvenes/Dogana, competes in the amateur levels." needs citation.
Ydone History section needs expansion. Even though it's only been around since 1960, provide a summary of how they've got on in the past 47 seasons.
Ydone In Club colours section, no need to continually repeat [4] for every sentence, it's sufficient to use it at the end of the paragraph.
There's no history behind the colours section - why play in those colours?
"The sponsor of San Marino Calcio is Alfa Lum, also the sponsor of the Coppa Italia." citation needed.
Yyes Is current squad still correct (as of 8 December)?
Ydone Cut the management section down a lot - mostly trivial positions in a club whose manager doesn't even have an article.
Ydone some, working on it Notable players. Notable how? Check other football Featured articles for how this is best dealt with. A fork to a comprehensive list of players who meet a defined set of criteria (e.g. minimum number of appearances, club record holders, international players while at the club) is what I'd recommend. At the moment, this list is purely subjective.
Overall it's a little on the light side. Adding more sources and references and expanding each section would make for a better article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the record for shortest time from GA-failed to GA-passed is, or even if there is one, but four days has to be pretty good. We're now looking for those little things we've missed that will annoy the FA reviewers. A comment has already been made on the talk page suggesting a "difference between book and musical" paragraph/section, which is a good idea. Any other suggestions? Happy‑melon 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is minutes; please don't assume GA makes an FA, because GAs are passed by one editor and GA status has little relevance to FA preparedness. Some things to work on—samples only, no need to get back to me as corrections are done:
WP:OVERLINKing. Don't most English speakers know words and places like witch, word-of-mouth, Canada, Connecticut, New York, and United States, and I saw Joel Grey linked many times. The article is awash in blue, and those irrelevant overlinks dilute the high-value links. Only links which provide specific context to this article are needed, and terms need be linked only on the first occurrence. Ditto for Glinda, Elphaba, Medina—they are repeatedly linked. And why the links in the infobox to Chicago, Tokyo, etc? Don't most people know what those major cities are, and is clicking on those links going to tell me something about Stephen Schwartz? I removed linking of solo years, see WP:MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV has crept in with WP:PEACOCKery. Yes, we all know it's one of the greatest musicals ever; let the numbers and review say that without adding inflated, peacock terms. Sample in the lead, "Although the production received mixed reviews and was panned by the New York Times, it was extremely popular" ... extremely isn't needed. Check the text for such things. Here's another one that's not necessary: Wicked's popularity dramatically spread quickly by word-of-mouth ...
By the way, it's popularity spread by word of mouth? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:LEAD for how a lead should be constructed before you approach FAC. Why is a transitional event like the Stagehand Strike mentioned in the lead?
WP:MOSNUM (read it all before approaching FAC, it is exactly the kind of page that is overlooked at GA): avoid starting sentences with numbers. 800,000 people have seen the West End production and over 2 million the North American tour.[4]
WP:MOSNUM: The show was nominated for ten of the 2004 Tony Awards, ...
Format your ref dates consistently so user preferences will work—see how ugly this looks?
^ "Something Wicked This Way Comes". Ugly Betty. November 1, 2007. No. 6, season 2.
^ "A “Wicked” Ugly Betty Episode", BroadwayWorld TV, 2007-11-01. Retrieved on November 5, 2007.
You need to put brackets around the 2007-11-01 so it will format.
All sources should have a publisher identified, notice:
Wicked - die Hexen von Oz. Retrieved on November 9, 2007.
Who published that? It also needs a language icon.
And this one, for example: Wicked on Broadway. Retrieved on November 8, 2007.
I didn't check them all, but make sure that everything sourced to (^ a b c d e f g h i Wicked - Musical Themes. MusicalSchwartz.com.) Stephen Scwartz is a statement *from* Stephen Schwartz; he is not an unbiased source, and he should only be used to source what *he* says.
The "Casts" section has refs hanging mid-air; they should be attached to sentences or something. Also, Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a Playbill. I'm not sure current cast is appropriate (see WP:NOT). There's also a hanging ref at the end of principle roles; better to add an introductory sentence and attach it to that, or incorporate it into the table as a footnote. The cast lists should be shuffled off to a daughter article, and this section should focus much more on the critical reception of Grey, Idina, et al.
I don't see a Production section at all; the article cannot be comprehensive (1b) without that.
What does this mean, exactly? Happy‑melon 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is essentially (unfortunately) no working Theatre WikiProject, but see the Film Guidelines for some helpful tips: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines They should help you better write the Cast and Production and Critical reception sections.
Please see the exercises for reducing redundancy on Tony1 (talk·contribs)'s user page. Example: The Broadway production opened October 30, 2003 to very mixed and largely conservative reviews from theatre critics ...
That's all I have time for now: I'll come back to add more if I have some free time. The missing sections (for example, Production) really must be added before you approach FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undefined acronym redirect; check throughout. " ... and was certified platinum by the RIAA ... " 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've managed to add at least stubs to all the club's managers and want to further the article further possible towards a FLC. I want to know what else should be done to improve the article particularly towards references and the lead section. I reckon the article may also need a picture.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 12:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One quick point - I would add in a photograph of one of the managers. Everlast1910 16:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. There's only currently two to pick from so I've gone for the more appropriate one. Peanut4 16:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment before I have to dash off to a meeting - this sentence makes no sense grammatically: "Bradford City's first manager was Robert Campbell, who was succeeded upon the club's election into the league in 1903."ChrisTheDude 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to appointed. Peanut4 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Two years later he was succeeded the club's most " - is there a "by" missing?
Added "by". Peanut4 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, prose is a bit choppy, too many short sentences. Perhaps a copyedit?
Sorry, you're right - it's a side-effect of the job creeping in. I've given it a good copy-edit hopefully it's better now? -- Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...a record-breaking season." - in what sense?
Altered the wording and added reference. Peanut4 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's a wikilink available for "player-manager".
There is. And added it. -- Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...winding-up order..." bit jargon, reduces accessability to non-experts.
changed to official liquidation. May try to find a wikilink and if it exists will add that too. -- Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"... to land a trophy ..." a bit colloquial.
changed to win Peanut4 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"star players" - POV.
Added reference which calls them "star players". Peanut4 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"were expected to bounce back ..." - Original research unless you cite it.
Wow. Found a reference for it. Changed the wording to go with reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" superb run " - POV again.
Removed superb run and changed to more factual. Peanut4 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Success in the final saw City and Luton Town swap places." - are you referring to Luton getting relegated and City getting promoted? I get it, others may not.
changed to swap divisions Peanut4 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He then built his reputation " - OR again.
Changed to "defied critics" and added suitable reference. Peanut4 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" his boyhood club " - did he play for them or support them as a boy?
changed Peanut4 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...sensationally ..." - POV.
changed to shock as per reference and added other references to back up whole sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"splashing out money on a series of stars " - colloquial and POV.
Amended wording and added suitable references. Peanut4 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"But the money Hutchings was given still has repercussions on the club's league position and finances." - original research.
Added reference - though not necessarily a great one. Peanut4 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...City legend Stuart McCall was lured from..." bit peacock.
Lol. Read peacock and I think "bit" is an understatement. I've amended this to a factual reference. Peanut4 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the history section in principle but I suggest you add a number of citations to clear up the problems with original research throughout.
Would recommend making articles, albethem stubs, for Jim McAnearney & Tom Hallett.
Soccerbase is notoriously poor for pre-late-1990s stats. Can you independently verify the stats for early managers?
Hope that helps. Let me know if I can be of any more use. The Rambling Man 11:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General reply. Thanks very much for the reply. I will try add some references to back up POVs and ORs or change the text itself. I'm in the process of adding stubs for Jim McAnearney & Tom Hallett but wanted to get the rest of the managers done first. And I agree about Soccerbase. I don't know the exact dates the managers changed so I can't corroborate the manager stats. I also have doubts about a lack of caretaker between George Mulhall and Roy McFarland but can't find any supporting evidence anywhere to say there was one. Peanut4 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I've managed to find references for them all. I will add stubs for Jim Mc and Tom Hallett too and I think I've addressed all the other comments. Though I need to go thru the stats to check Soccerbase, though at least I've referenced the stats to a verifiable source. Peanut4 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review before submitting again for FAC because this article failed to become an FA article from the last nomination. I have already tried my best to improve many aspects according to the comment given by last FAC. Please give me opinion/comment so that I can improve the article promptly. Thanks! Coloane 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The red links should be fixed. Also, I find some of the images unnecessary to the topic (some of the tourism-related photos are place outside of tourism). You can refer to New York City. -- Starczamora (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Which tourism-related photos are place outside of tourism and unnecessary(e.g. Macau Tower?, Sands Casino?)? can you specifically point them out so that I can remove them right away? as for red links that you mentioned, I think these links are not related to the improvement of this article. Coloane (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The photos of Lotus Square and Ruins of Saint Paul seem out of place in relation to the section they are posted IMO. Starczamora (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - I tried to put these photos that you mentioned to the sections of tourism and culture. As for the photo of Ruins of Saint Paul, it seems to me that it is closely related to the section of culture as the ruins was the front door of Saint Paul. Coloane (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I've moved some of the information into appropriate sections and added references to verify all the information which was previously unverified.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LordHarris
Just a few quick thoughts looking over the article in brief:
You first need to work on the lead, take a look at WP:Lead as it needs expanding in line with the MOS.
Second try not to have a list of departments, rather incorporate them into prose, perhaps adding news stories or university articles relating to the departments research and staff.
Third I would recommend creating a new article for alumni of southampton and add a main article link to the new article with a short paragraph mentioning a few of the leading members of staff.
Most important you need to add lots more references, there are dozens of news stories of interest and notability on the BBC news website alone relating to the university. Try expanding the article with these sources.
Also with the history section for example try adding references from any material released on the university e.g. a history book of the university or from the university prospectus which you could request. I think the article is coming along but it still needs a lot of work. Good job so far. LordHarris (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting. Same as before. A request has been put in at WP:LoCE for a copyedit. Brad 12:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence, which says the show is a "BBC television drama produced by the BBC ...for BBC One", is unnessarily redundant. I'd lose at least first instance of "BBC" (you can always pipe link "television drama" to BBC television drama if that's necessary); the third reference could be moved to another sentence.
The second sentence in the lead is very choppy, with lots of short clauses and two parenthetical statements. It needs to be simplified, either by reordering the clauses, or by breaking them into two sentences—something along the lines of "Created by G.F. Newman, it follows the exploits of a High Court judge—Sir John Deed, played by Martin Shaw—as he tries to seek justice in the cases brought before him." You later mention the fact that Newman is well-known as the creator of Law and Order, but you probably don't need to do so in the lead; it's not really relevant to this article.
There are multiple wikilinks to the same articles; per WP:MOS, only the first instance should be wikilinked. Examples include Martin Shaw (three times in the first three paragraphs), High Court (twice in the first three paragraphs), G.F. Newman, Law and Order and many others.
Commas are missing in lots of places. Some examples:
"As of 2007 there have been 29 episodes..."
"In later years the series has shifted to a serialised format..."
"Ratings for the series peaked with its first episode at 9.1 million[33] but it still ..."
"the BBC had announced an intention to use Martin Shaw in a range of new projects and it was apparent..."
The sentence "The series remains on a break until the style is changed and due to Martin Shaw's involvement in a new series." is not well-written grammatically.
All single dashes need to be converted to em-dashes, per WP:MOS.
"Deed has been accused of hypocrisy..." Is it the character or the show that's been accused? It's unclear from the article.
Glad to hear you've approached the LoCE; that will probably clean up a lot of these issues. I'll try to add more comment about the content of the article (as opposed to the writing) if I get some time over the holidays. Good luck with your drive toward improving the article! MeegsC | Talk 12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I have just completed an expansion of the article and would appreciate some feedback, I particularly ask for this because Philip is a friend and associate and I would value third party comments on whether I have maintained a sufficiently neutral point of view.
It's quite short: can you expand on his education? DrKiernan 13:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to do so, and of course I have the information (or can easily get it) as I know him. The problem is that little or none of it has been published and this would therefore be original research! It may be that one of his radio interviews published on the www has this information, which would be a better source. Or of Philip himself were to post the information on the talk page, could we then include it? Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me) 13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure. I guess not, as we don't really know if it's him posting it, and/or it would be his original research! DrKiernan 13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a helpful policy here, which indicates that non-contentious information (such as education, working life etc) can be sourced to a self-published item like a blog or website. So if I can get Philip to provide this I can then cite it and use the relevant info. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk to me) 16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't very long. Should it be longer?
I've written most of this article and I'd like some "outside eyes" to take a look. I feel it is well sourced and it even has an image. I'm a bit concerned that it isn't global enough, I don't know of the term "redlining" being used to describe practices in other countries. I also worry that it a bit limited on the history side, should I add more info about earlier form of mortgage discrimination that predate the use of the term "redlining" ? Should I talk about Jim Crow laws that made it hard for blacks to buy property? Or is it better to leave that to other articles on segregation and discrimination in the US? When people say "redlining" they are usual talking about the practice as it occurred in the US in urban settings. Is it OK that that is where the focus of this article remains?
A section on the legality of redlining might be needed: state laws, current cases, recent insurance/banking department rulings.
The article tend to lean towards race as the primary cause (and it historically was, as the true definition implies) but the article should be expanded to address economic, enviromental (coastal areas), and any other causes of current redlining.
Great reference section. Nicely researched.
Just my 2 cents worth, Gtstricky 18:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what you meant by coastal so I did a little research and found out that it's called "Shorelining" -- perhaps it would be better to start an article on this topic?
Shorelining is the practice of insurance companies charing higher rates to homeowners located near the coast in Hurricane-prone regions. Word shorelining is meant to evoke redlining, and therefore discrimination.[1]
A section on laws is a good idea, I'll need to hit the library for that. Thanks for the review! futurebird (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to nominate this article for peer review. I've made extensive edits and additions to this article and wish to see where it stands and where further edits may be necessary.
Thanks,
Arcturis 02:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had many revisions since last review. Looking for new feedback. Thanks Gtstricky 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a major rewrite of the article, and although there haven't been any complaints so far, I would welcome more eyeballs to doublecheck my work and to suggest future improvements. Alecmconroy 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the series over now this seems like a good time to try and get at leaste one Harry Potter article to featured status and IMO this is the best one. At a glance I can see a major problem with a lack of refs and the way some of the one that are there are set out. Also is the book's own content a good enough ref? Buc 08:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need to see how the article can be improved to GA status, and ultimately FA status. I will fix any nuisances that are mentioned here. The last peer review was almost no good (as it was reviewed by a bot). TheChronic 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In History section: "did not achieve much success" exessive verbage. Try "were unsuccessful"
Same section: "reverse the team's fortunes in a dramatic way" informal, uses peacock words
Section title: "Plunge to the lottery": rather jargony. Non-NBA fans have NO idea what this means.
Probably lots of other language issues. I am NOT a good copy editor. Consider seeking the help of the league of copy editors for help with this.
Organization issues:
summary style issues. When you split a section into a new article, there is no need for the section to remain as long as the daughter article. For example, the "History" section is WAY too long and excessively detailed in places. Consider paring it down to the highlights, and move the details to the daughter article. Think about "lead" sized (or maybe slightly larger). I would think you could pare the history section down to like 3-5 paragraphs total. If its long enough to have subsections, its too long in this case.
The section on transactions also has the same problem. Consider reducing ALL sections on players down to a single section. "Notable players" and spliting info to other articles. Under notable players, it is probably OK to significantly limit this to players of real distinction (such as Hall of Famers or Top 50 all-time players, like Pippin). We don't need every single draft pick the team has ever made here.
This article should be the kind of article where someone who knows next-to-nothing about the Blazers would get a general overview of the team. The daughter articles (like a Players article, and a Seasons article and the like) would be the place to get more details. Consider the following organizational scheme:
Name and branding (condense the Blazermania stuff into here)
History (condense some of the "and the media" stuff into here too...)
Players
Notable past players (keep it about MAJOR players, such as retired numbers, hall-of-famers, and Top 50s (like Pippen)
Current players
Coaching staff
Front office
Media personel (keep on the personalities, like radio and TV play-by-play etc.)
Team and league records (include team record holders, league record holders, championships won, overall and playoff records, etc.)
Venue
Consider the following "Daughter" articles to take up the details from this one. Some of these probably already exist:
History article
Players and coaches article (include sections on draft picks, all stars, major trades, retired numbers etc.)
Seasons article (several NFL teams have featured seasons articles... try Chicago Bears seasons for a great example)
That should give you enough to work on. If you need any more help, drop a line on my talk page! Always glad to help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki page of Philippine Idol has been a collaboration since 2006. I polished the article from a whopping 80+K page to around 50+K to serve as an example for other Wiki pages of Philippine television shows to achieve a GA status. It has been extensively researched ranging from its official website to news reports and entertainment columns, and most links have been updated. I appreciate your comments and suggestions.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to make this a featured list. Any suggestions for improvement is appreciated. Thanks. Miranda 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative feedback on how it could reach GA-class and hopefully above. Now that the competition is over, it should remain relatively stable, with perhaps the odd bit of vandalism from a disgruntled Englishman or New Zealander. However, I believe that, with a few minor modifications, this article could reach at least A-class.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else care to make some suggestions? - PeeJay 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4u1e's comments
Lead: 'Of them, Portugal 'is the only World Cup debutant'. Is or was?
Lead: Doesn't feel like there's much about the tournament itself in the lead. Perhaps remove the bit about pool winners qualifying for the 2011 cup (which doesn't seem important enough for the lead of an article about the 2007 event) and put in more about the way the tournament progressed - the surprise packages and disappointing performances, perhaps?
Bid: I got confused right at the start! :(
Were England and France the only two nations to bid for the competition?
'The tender document for the 2007 bidding process was due out on October 31, 2001.' Is the tender document the 'Invitation to tender' (the document issued by the IRB requesting tenders), or the tender submitted by England/France? I wasn't sure from the context. Also, saying after the event that the document was due out on a certain date seems strange: did it come out on that date or not? If so, why not just say so. If not, the article probably needs to explain the change and the reasons for it.
Perhaps move the sentence 'Both England and France were invited to re-submit their plans' to the end of the first paragraph? I think the reader will follows the paragraph more easily if the ideas go in that order.
Bid: Regarding citing, I know views differ, but as you have used only one reference throughout the second paragraph of this section, I would strongly advise citing it just once at the end of the paragraph. It should be clear to readers that all information in that paragraph comes from that one source and it is far less intrusive. Some will tell you (and they are strictly following the rules) that you should also cite immediately after the two direct quotes, although I don't believe it necessary.
Bid:I would argue similarly for the first para: refs 1 and 2 are not really needed, since 3 confirms that both France and England bid. 3 (which would then be 1!) could also be used just once at the end of the paragraph.
Bid (2nd para): 'The tournament was moved to the proposed September-October dates'. I had understood from the preceding para that France's proposal of September/October had caused their bid to fall outside the IRB's parameters. Is this right, and am I further understanding correctly that the proposed change was then made anyway?
Bid (2nd para): 'French cities to host games are' Were?
Bid (but also 'Hosting'): Perhaps review how these two sections fit together regarding the inclusion of matches in Wales and Scotland. I assume from the article that matches in these two British nations did not form part of France's original bid? (It might be interesting to answer the question of whether such matches formed part of the England bit, btw). Is it possible to clarify why some matches were planned and/or played overseas? It might seem unusual to those unfamiliar with the sport. More precise timings for the announcements would add to this as well. Did any French cities lose out as a result? Any controversy about this?
Qualifying: This may just be nationalistic nonsense from me, but it seems that the then-reigning champions should be identified fairly early on in the article. Perhaps 'Reigning champions England and the other seven quarter-finalists from the 2003 World Cup received automatic entry...' at the start of the first para?
Qualifying: I know you've linked repechage, but I would briefly explain the concept in the article as well, for ease of comprehension.
Qualifying: Can you find some way of indicating which nations qualified automatically, without taking up too much space? Perhaps a footnote to the table of nations?
Qualifying: 'In July 2005, both Samoa and Fiji were confirmed' Both is redundant and can be removed.
Qualifying (2nd para): 'reaching the first place in its qualifying group' Is this redundant? Italy have already been identified as Europe 1.
I'll leave it there for now, but obviously I haven't got very far through the article, which seems to be clearly structured and written so far. Hope this is useful. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've stopped there on the basis that no-one seems to be interested in responding to or implementing these suggestions. You don't have to accept the points, but it's a waste of my time to continue if they are not even considered. Drop me a line if you want me to continue with the review. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being a little straightforward, but I (big fan of Lost) wanted to review it before going to bed now. ;-) All of this are just suggestions. I really advice you to find a copyeditor before going to FAC. I can do this if you want, but not today.
Most FA reviewers don't like that much references in the intro, so it may be a good idea to cut them down to only the controversial ones. (No references may be needed at all, because the information is repeated somewhere else in the article).
Four of the six references have been moved down or removed.
When the episode first aired on the American Broadcasting Company in United States and CTV in Canada on May 16, 2007,[3] it was viewed by 12 million Americans. - could be shortened to The first airing of this episode on the American Broadcasting Company in United States and CTV in Canada on May 16, 2007 was viewed by 12 million Americans.
Done.
"The Others"' - The Others is linked, so the quotation marks are slightly unnecessary, and even seem awkward because of the apostrophe afterwards.
Kept quotation marks, but moved away from apostrophe
Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews) tells Jack that he believes that he can communicate - 2x "that", so rewrite to Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews) tells Jack that he may be able to communicate. The whole sentence is a little run-on anyway and could be split.
Done.
Many consecutive sentences sound like "Person A believes this. Person B tells Person C that. Person D argues this and that. Person E realizes that." - A little variety could help.
The fifth is ..., The fourth is, The fourth is - again, a little variety would make it sound a lot better.
Used "penultimate" and "number 3."
The last Plot paragraph consists of three sentences, each one starting with "Charlie". Can be improved.
Done.
Most (if not all) of the episode was filmed from April 9, 2007[13] to April 12. - I didn't check the sources, but this really sounds like speculation even though it is sourced.
I added how to get these dates.
The name of the Dharma station in the episode etc. - You forgot a period at the end.
97198 fixed that.
Monaghan said that "I think ['Greatest Hits'] was [made] to allow the audience to sit with [my character's fate] long enough to prepare themselves for what was going to happen [in the finale]." - rewrite Monaghan thought that 'Greatest Hits' was made "to allow the audience to sit with [my character's fate] long enough to prepare themselves for what was going to happen [in the finale]."
Done.
After Bernard Nadler (Sam Anderson) demonstrates his skill... and "Greatest Hits" marked the first appearance for Bernard - swap sentences for better flow.
Done.
Show runner/co-creator/executive producer/head writer Damon Lindelof responded to their absense by saying that the actors had other projects - (1) Don't show off Damon like that. ;-) Same for Carlton. (2) shorten to explained their absense with their other projects or something like that. Generally, the word "that" to connect two sentences is used way too often and should be improved.
Done.
IGN rated the episode as an 8.5/10, commending the character development of Jack and Charlie, and the acting skills of the actor who portrays Ben. - Plot section mentions no interaction between Jack and Charlie. I misread the original sentence, so strike.
Good work, all seems to be well but as per the norm there are a few little things:
In Reception: "...the actor who portrays Ben". Would it be better to say 'Michael Emerson, who portrays Ben'?
Changed to "Emerson, who portrays Ben."
In Production, there are estimated filming dates with references - except I don't understand them. You've linked to two promotional photos from the episode, but as far as I can tell there are no dates...? Enless you've extracted the metadata (but still, I have no idea how one would go about that)?
I added how to get these dates.
In the infobox and plot summary, two guest stars are unlinked. WP:RED: "Good redlinks help Wikipedia". Some people just seem to be allergic to redlinks (not necessarily you, just a generalisation).
Yeah, I do not like red links, but I added them.
On the talk page, you've deemed BuddyTV an unreliable source, yet I see you've cited it as a reference thrice within the article. Thoughts?
BuddyTV cannot be used as a source to confirm the episode title or central character. It can be used for real-world perspective.
And, as usual, an issue with numbers like always (not that I've done too many of these ;)).
Normal numbers (over 10) - MoS seems quite general about; they're happy with figures or letters as long as there's consistency, basically. In Plot, we have "16", "seventy" and "eighty", while in the lead we have a "92".
Done.
Done? I see no changes made to any of them. ? •97198talk 05:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is good. •97198talk 11:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, etc.) - MoS is adamant that they must be written in letters, unless stating centuries. In the lead we have "21st" and "68th" (which seems to be consistent through every episode of Lost) which are fairly big numbers, yet in Reception we have "fifty-first" and "fifteenth". I do understand that within the lead there is a consistency in style amongst all Lost episodes, and also not a lot of consistency through other featured episode articles from different shows.
Done.
Is it "The Others" or "the Others"? There may not be consistency throughout all Lost articles, but there should certainly be consistency within the article. In the lead we have "The Others", whereas we have "the Others" and a separated "the ambushing Others" in the plot. Even the Others (Lost) article has some consistency issues. IMO, if their own article is missing the "The", then we should just stick to the uncapitalised "the".
Made consistent.
Good luck! •97198talk 03:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy and thorough reviews. I addressed almost all of the problems (the exception being "Many consecutive sentences sound like…"). –thedemonhogtalk • edits 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looks good from a distance. I don't really have time to proof read all of it. Only two things really stuck out as being unnecessary. That was the time stamp and the release. First, all hour long shows are typically between 40 to 45 minutes, so stating exactly how long the episode was is just indiscriminate. It had seeming relevance with Through the Looking Glass because it was an extended episode, but here it's just stating general knowledge of television viewing. The second is the release. The episode isn't getting released on its own, you're just stating that it will be released with the season DVD. That's typical, and not really necessary to state outloud. Now, if it was the other way around, and it was being left out of the DVD set, that would be noteworthy. But I don't believe that making note that it will be released with the rest of the season, something that happens with all shows when they are released, is worth noting. If it was like some TV shows, where they released a single episode of the show, like Smallville did with the first two episodes of season 1, then that would be worth noting, since that isn't something that usually happens. I would also try and incorporate a summarization of production in the lead, since the lead should summarize the whole article, not just the plot and the reception section. One more quick note, citations should follow punctuations as a general rule. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The runtime and release mentions have been removed. As for the references, I left many as they were because if they are moved, they appear to back-up other claims. Thank you for your time, –thedemonhogtalk • contributions 02:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like somebody to give a review of this article. I have spent the past few days working on this article and I submitted it as good article nominee, which it achieved. Ultimately I would like this article to be a featured article and I would like some peer response and input on how either me or other editors could get this article up to that standard. Rezter (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've found a few minutes, and, as promised at WP:HMM, here's my review.
"The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, during the recording process of which; guitarist Jim Root replaced Josh Brainard, which was the final line up change of the band." That sentence is rather clumsy- perhaps it would be better to say something like "The band underwent many line up changes before releasing their highly successful début album Slipknot in 1999, before reaching the final lineup of _______________ during the album's recording."
"Since which the band have released a further 2 albums and are expected to release a 4th album in 2008." Perhaps name the albums, so as not to lean towards recent events? Also, perhaps "since which time" instead of "since which"?
More information about the pre-formation Slipknot would be good if it is available- it's currently just a list of names. What did they do? Could it be bulked out enough for its own subsection? At the moment, the freestanding paragraph looks a little out of place, especially as single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon.
Grammatically, the sentence is a little odd (I'm not going to say it is wrong, as I probably don't understand semi-colons as well as I should) I would phrase it as "Early formations of a band were beginning to form as early as 1992 with the core band members, Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini and Paul Gray, enlisting the help of guitarists Donnie Steele and Quan "Meld" Nong." Also, repeating the word 'form' twice jarrs a tad.
"The band continued to develop their vision of what the band would be," Perhaps "The members continued to develop their vision of what the band would be,"?
"band Sipknot after" Why is that italicised?
"after their song"- after which song? Maybe "after their song of the same name"
"(which subsequently evolved in to (sic) which appears on their début album)" Song name in speech marks.
"until they thought the band was ready" Repetition ruins this line. Perhaps 'until their music was fully developed.'
"By this time the band had a lot"- By what time?
"to make a recording," I'd delink that, looks like over-linking to me.
"local studio, SR Audio with Sean McMahon." You need to close the parenthesis with a comma after 'Audio'
"April 4th Slipknot"- I'd add the year, and then link both the date and the year.
"to realise again" I'm British too, but this is an American topic, so the spelling should be American- 'realize'.
"released Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. on Halloween." More details about the release- date and year (on top of the fact you say it is Halloween) and label.
Is that considered the band's debut album, or an EP? Perhaps you could make that clear?
Why are all the references clumped at the end of the paragraph? Doing that kind of defeats the point of footnotes.
I've just noticed the complex heading hierarchy you are using. I would personally remove the sub-sub-sub headings- ('first recordings and live performances', 'more changes and growing popularity', etc) compare to other featured articles on similar topics (Slayer, Nightwish, Tool (band)...) and you'll see that most articles don't do that.
Actually, now that I have said that, I see that it would probably be best to rename the first history subsection to 'Early years (pre-1998)' so you can bulk that first lonely line into a paragraph and put that as the first paragraph in the section.
To give an idea about what those two above changes look like, I have implemented them in my sandbox if you want to take a look.
"being heard by the right people" That isn't NPOV. Say who these people are, not that they are 'the [adjective] people'.
"By the summer of 1997 Slipknot went back to the studio, they were constantly honing their craft and writing new material and they were writing music which required more vocal melody." Again, seems a little POV, plus, seasons vary by nationality. Try- "By mid-1997, Slipknot had returned to the studio having developed new material requiring more vocal melody." As that is still rather subjective, a reference is definitely needed.
"band Stone Sour, this" Link? Also, a full stop would be better than a comma.
"The gap on percussion was the filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts who was to become the first and only member to be fired from the band, again there was a spot free on percussion it was filled by Chris Fehn." Another clumsy sentence- try "The gap on percussion was th filled by Greg "Cuddles" Welts, who subsequently became the first and only member to be fired from the band. He was replaced Chris Fehn." More details on the firing would be nice, too.
What does "attained numbers" mean? That's not a phrase I am familiar with.
Again, it would be better to put the citations after the facts, rather than at the end of the paragraphs.
Right, I will have to finish this review another time. Overall, the article looks to be well researched and have excellent potential, but needs to be tweaked at a structural level, and needs a thorough copy-edit. I can see this article reaching featured level with a little more work, and if this review gets a couple of editors having a good sift through the article, I suspect that it won't take too much more work. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, LaraLove did a copy-edit of the article and I have adjusted the article along with some of your recommendation's. I would like to see what you make of the rest of the article if you ever have time to finish your review. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found some more time, so I will finish the review now.
"In July 2001, Q magazine named Slipknot as one of the "50 Heaviest Albums of All Time"." I would call the magazine Q instead of Q magazine, as that is the accepted title. Also, the magazine name should be in italics.
This may be a little rich coming from me (I overuse them) but you continually use commas in a way which I do not think is correct. For instance, this line really hits me- "The band had created a huge fan base and the expectations for their follow up album were great, Slipknot went back in to the studio in early 2001 to work on a new album." Why is that comma there? It seems to be two separate sentences- it should be treated as such, or perhaps just stick an 'and' in there. In any case, the sentence is a little vague.
"In the same year Slipknot released their second visual output with the released of their DVD Disasterpieces." Reference?
"2002 also saw the first serious musical projects outside of Slipknot." Make it clear that this means side projects of the members. As it reads now, you mean any serious musical project at all, whether related to Slipknot or not.
"their band Stone Sour" Link?
I'd lose the accents on 'début'. They don't seem to be needed in English- [14].
"Root, Taylor, and Gray also contributed to the album. In 2006, Root and Taylor once again returned with Stone Sour releasing their second album Come What(ever) May. Jordison drummed for several bands while on tour including; Ministry (2006-2007) and Korn (2007). He also produced 3 Inches of Blood's third album Fire Up the Blades which was released in early 2007. Later in the year Crahan revealed a new side project in the form of Dirty Little Rabbits." That whole section is horribly unreferenced.
"Slipknot are known for their often chaotic and energetic live shows" Reference?
""[are] not generally quotable on a family website"," According to whom?
"The band is known for its attention-grabbing image." Reference?
"The members wear matching uniform jumpsuits and homemade masks." Ditto.
"The masks have been subject of much criticism, generally thought of as a gimmick to try sell their product." Reference? If you are hoping to get this to featured article, everything is going to need to be well referenced.
"several band members" Repetition of this phrase needs to be dealt with.
Section title- "Band Members"- decap 'Members'.
References in regards to dates and numbers would be good.
Right, I have now gone through the whole thing. I am happy to continue with general comments (for instance, I really would reccomend not just sticking all the paragraph's references at the end of it) if you like. J Milburn (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have looked over review and here's what I've done/think.
Done
Done
Sourced
Done
Done
Done
Sourced
Sourced
Done
Done
Done
A lot of criticism comes from supposedly "true" metal fans. I can't be sure of what is considered a reliable source for this, I have added one from Urban Dictionary
Done
Done
Could you be more specific?
I have actually order two new books [15] and [16] on top of the one I already have [17]. Once I get both of these two books I intend to resource as much as possible. I was thinking of using a system similar to the one used on the U2#References article were they list the books and foot note each statement with a page number. Do you think this is a good system or do you know of a better one. Thansk again for your help. Rezter (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today I received my two new books and I have resourced the majority of the "pre-1998" section and a few misc sources throughout the article. The only thing I haven't addressed on your list is "References in regards to dates and numbers would be good." which I don't completely understand so could you be more specific please? Rezter (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urban dictionary is not a good source, at all- I'd remove that. I like that system of citing books in footnotes. Sorry about the number and dates thing- I was working down the article, and so it was obvious to me (at the time) that I was referring to the discography section. Sorry about that, I was probably rushing to finish. In any case, I was referring to the release dates and the sales figures in the discography section. I'll have a quick glance over the article now. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph in the article is a single line- why not just make that part of the next paragraph?
Sorry- I have just realised that the number of albums sold (or, at least, the certifications) are cited.
I wouldn't bold the awards they have won- I would just tack "(winner)" on the end.
Yeah, just to repeat now I have seen it in the context of the article, the new reference system looks great.
Great to see the number of footnotes in use, as well as the fact that they cite the specific fact rather than the paragraph- the article is now looking great, but I haven't reread the prose yet.
Sorry, I've just realised I misinterpreted my own comment too- no wonder you did! By 'dates and numbers', I meant the dates which the members were part of the band, and the numbers which the members have on their jumpsuits.
Well, I have not gone over it in as much detail as I did last time, but it is looking far better, and certainly doesn't seem far from being ready for FAC. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By request, I've reviewed the article. As a copy-editor, I went ahead and took care of that along the way. In my changes, I removed the album cover image. Fair use only applies to such images in the article specific to the album.
Some additions I feel should be made include:
Did they have any musical influences?
Why was Welts fired?
When did they sign to Roadrunner Records?
The article states "mixed reviews", but does not include any negative reviews. Rather than two good reviews, one positive, one negative.
Has there been any controversy with any of their songs or performances?
References should not be placed mid-sentence. It should come immediately following punctuation, no spaces before, no punctuation after. Also, it isn't necessary for the lead to be referenced as it is a summary of the article and any information should be referenced there. If the reference that I moved to the infobox that was reverted is going to stay in the lead, it needs to be moved to the end of the sentence.
If you're going for GA, you may want to discuss changes made by the reviewer on the talk page before reverting them. Drop a line on my talk page if you have any questions. Lara❤Love 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help with this article.
I could try find sources which state the artist's musical influences if you think that it will make the article better. Do you maybe have an example of an article that has this so I could have more of an idea of format and structure.
I have added why Welts was fired.
I'm having trouble finding out the exact date that they signed to Roadrunner records.
I have removed the "mixed reviews" section as most reviews are positive.
The only incident I have heard of is this: [18] personally I don't think it's worth mentioning as that is the only story I have heard of.
Thanks once again for all your help and any more suggestions are always welcome. Rezter (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - wikilinked the first use or "promotion". Failure to do so was just a cock-up on my part :-)
Additional information needed These are the actual article titles, so are you saying this is an Americanism? Is "World War One" acceptable, i.e. dropping the roman numeral?
Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.
Remark: He was definitely in charge for 46 years, but I haven't yet independently verified the stats, I've only used soccerbase. What I need to do quite soon is get the managers sub-article (list) to FL by verifying the stats against several books I have, then use the verified results in the main article. This is probably a barrier to FA for this article until I complete this task, not sure about GA though.
Carnivàle, 
Characters of Carnivàle and 
done "later to its current appellation." - odd wording, and if it was renamed again then it should be cited.
