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 readd ((peer review)) to the article talk page.

Leeds United A.F.C. seasons

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

Following a somewhat acrimonious bungled FLC attempt, and since one of the major editors no longer supports the list in its current state, I thought I'd bring this to peer review again so that the community can decide on a consensus for a number of things most significantly the inclusion of the current season which brought the majority of opposition at the failed FLC. In its current state it's very close, in my opinion, to the standard required for a WP:FL but I'd like the community to assist with the odd contentious issue and the wording of the lead. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is now closed and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Leeds United A.F.C. seasons/archive2.


(Peer review added on Thursday 31 January 2008, 21:29 UTC)

Randall Flagg

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

I have succeeded in getting this to Good Article status, and if possible I would like it to become a Featured Article. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 31 January 2008, 22:22 UTC)

List of Mr. Stain Characters

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because… it has not been rated yet

Thanks,

Binarymoron (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 1 February 2008, 07:41 UTC)

List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

Next in-line for the Ipswich Town drive for featured topic, I'd like the community to review this article. I'm convinced that with some (or a lot!) of work I can get this to featured status, either FL or FA. I'm prepared to do a lot of rework in terms of prose etc should FA be the way forward, if FL then I'd appreciate advice on how best to get there too given the mixed nature of the article.

I will, as ever, endeavour to remedy wrongs, discuss discussion points and work hard to get this article as promoted as the community believe is possible. Cheers as always for your time, effort and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records/archive1.


(Peer review added on Saturday 2 February 2008, 10:07 UTC)

Rossall School

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone a great deal of updating and referencing of late. It would also seem that the school should be updated to high level importance like the the rest of the English public schools.


Thanks,

LennyLeonardson (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Years review

Here are my suggestions:

Just my thoughts....leave a message on my talk page if you need further clarification/help, thanks. Twenty Years 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:28 UTC)

Flag of Germany

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


For the last few months I've been busy with this article. Before I started in July the article looked like this and now it looks like this. In working on this article, I've drawn on a number of articles that can now possibly be merged into this one (see various mergefrom requests now in the article) plus a number of articles from the German wiki, and various other sources, while at the same time trying to provide as many supporting references as possible. I am very interested in getting this article up to GA (or even FA?) standard so I would appreciate it if anyone could proofread it and/or expand/clarify any points that may need attention. After working on this for the last few months, I really need some fresh eyes on this article. Thanks - 52 Pickup (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks. Now nominating it as a GA - 52 Pickup (deal) 10:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. What about different templates (eg, ((seealso))) or would just linking within the text, as you suggest, be enough? - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer linking from within the text; I feel the large history articles are too big / too different in scope for a "see also". Kusma (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In an earlier draft I wrote a lot more about this, but then I trimmed it since the article was getting very long. I'll see what I can do about restoring this information. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think). His brother Ernst (no en-wiki article, but see de:Ernst Wirmer) was a CDU member of the Parlamentarischer Rat, later an advisor to chancellor Adenauer, and then an important figure in the formation of the West German defence ministry. So it was a proposal from within the CDU. There were many other proposals (see FOTW) but I believe that this one is the only notable one since it had the backing of the CDU/CSU. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:31 UTC)

Jazz drumming

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I listed this article for peer review because it was failed as a good article recently, and I have done my best to improve it; both according to the reviewer's suggestions and in what areas I thought improvement would be useful. Suggestions I am looking for:

Thanks,

Kakofonous (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alan W

One thing comes to mind in reading the last section, "Free Jazz". You say 'It seems that the evolution of jazz drumming has much to do with progressively “freeing” the beat....' This is a really major new idea being introduced at the end (at least it reads like that; I know you talk about freeing the beat in the previous section), and I think that it would need much more expansion and support with citations than it gets. Can you find support for this idea in any references? You may think that this is true, and maybe it is, but remember, in Wikipedia articles, just stating what you believe is true isn't sufficient. You do cite the interview by Clifford Allen with Sunny Murray, but your claim is a pretty all-embracing one, more, it seems to me, than is really supported by Murray's account of the concepts behind his own drumming.

You know, maybe the solution is simpler than that. At least it would be if you remove the broader claim from that section, and simply state that in "Free Jazz" there was a movement to free the beat even more than what you describe in the previous section, "1950s and 1960s". That way you avoid having to support what seems here like a major new thesis of your own. --Alan W (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think) Kakofonous (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And certainly an improvement (I think). --Alan W (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Clave rhythm--while I find it all very interesting, it is very dense, and, yes, a little technical, though I hope others are not averse to learning. I certainly learned something. I added a "Main article" tag, by the way, though I think that in some ways your coverage is more thorough that what is in Clave (rhythm) (which you might want to look at and even add to). It doesn't say anything about an African clave. Should it? Well, first things first, I suppose.

As a novice in this area, I will note, for perspective, that when I saw the word "clave" I immediately thought of the instrument, the claves. I'm wondering if somehow you could briefly, maybe parenthetically or even in a note, mention that the "clave" you are discussing is the rhythm, not the instrument (which even the least technically knowledgeable lover of Latin music will have heard of), although the instrument is used to play the rhythm.

The list of influential drummers you recently added: While that's nice, just calling it a list of "influential jazz drummers" without qualification I find confusing. I was about to add three more whose omission I couldn't understand (Baby Dodds, Jo Jones, and Philly Joe Jones) until it dawned on me that the list is really of some whom you consider influential but who are not mentioned above in the article itself. I'm wondering if you might somehow make that point (subheading? note? I'm not sure). I did add Philly Joe Jones, as I am always seeing his name cited as an influence on other drummers, and he is not mentioned elsewhere. (I tend to be an "inclusionist," so I didn't remove any names, but is Dannie Richmond really considered that influential? I'm not saying there was anything wrong with his playing; he was certainly very good, at least I think so; but is he really considered a major influence on anyone else?)

I removed Dannie Richmond and renamed the title of the section to a less citation-needing name. I don't know if it is necessary to mention the fact that these are drummers not mentioned in the article, as See also sections are assumed to follow that logic (see Wikipedia:Layout#See also). Kakofonous (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and with this lessened emphasis it's easier to look at the section in its "see also" aspect. --Alan W (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I can think of now, though I know that there is more that can be done here. You might consider breaking up some long sentences to make some of the technical stuff a little easier to digest. I'll see what else I can think of. I think I will just go in myself and tighten up some phrasing here and there. No technical knowledge of drumming required for that! --Alan W (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit uneasy about your reliance on the Ed Pias article. I see Pias is a drummer himself, and he may be a good one, but some of his judgments about the history of drumming seem to me to be on a shaky footing. He seems to know what he is talking about with respect to the more recent, freer drummers, but when he characterizes the older ones, some of what he says seems way off. Baby Dodds was squarely in the old New Orleans tradition and in no way a swing or big-band drummer. Big Sid Catlett was a great influence on later drummers and perhaps helped to pave the way for bebop drumming; but I sure wouldn't lump him with the "bebop or hard-bop" drummers as Pias does. I think this slapdash and incorrect characterization leaks into what you say when you call Catlett an "influential drummer of bebop". I think it would be more correct to call him influential *on* some of the beboppers rather than "of" that movement itself. --Alan W (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence bothers me: "Due to the necessity of a different method of playing percussion in the early developmental era of jazz, jazz drumming was invented." First, the grammatical structure is not really correct; "due to" is not the equivalent of "because of", though I grant that this is such a common mistake that it has almost been legitimized. Secondly, the passive voice at the end makes the sentence weak. But I think the most serious problem here is that you beg the question of the necessity. Why was it necessary to play percussion differently in jazz? Of course this is only the introduction, and you can't say much, but you might give more of a hint than you do. Even later in the article, I don't think that this necessity emerges clearly. Also--different from what? Percussion in European classical music? In popular dance music? In marching bands? Or...? I know this might not be easy to express concisely, so complex is the subject. If I could think of a way to revise this sentence now, I'd do it myself! --Alan W (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the problematic sentence to "Jazz required a method of playing percussion different from traditional European styles, one that was easily adaptable to the different musical situations that appeared in this new genre, fostering the creation of jazz drumming's hybrid technique." This seemed less vague and (hopefully) more understandable. One of the reasons I requested this peer review was that I do tend to write in a rather dense style, and it is gratifying to find someone willing to go through and catch all those sentences. Kakofonous (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. I've edited the sentence a little more. I think what I did fits in with what you say later in the paragraph. Glad I can be of help. I'll go through more, time permitting. --Alan W (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tightened up the lead (or "lede", as the old-time journalists call it) quite a bit. If I've left out anything crucial you can always add it back. You've brought in a lot of very good essential material later in the article; but too much of those first few paragraphs was repetitious and vague. E.g., paragraph 3, sentence 1, as it was, read, "The style could have begun at a number of different times...." What style? We're talking about many styles in the evolution of the music. And I couldn't grasp exactly what that sentence was supposed to mean at all.

The more I think about this article, my feeling is that the ideas behind the bulk of it are sound, and you generally cite good references to back up what you say. But, really, this topic is huge. It may be that you've bitten off a bit more than either of us can chew. As much as there is, I think more needs to be said about certain contributory components, such as the invention of new cymbals and other parts of the drum set. And there should be more coverage in other areas, probably, that my lack of technical knowledge prevents me from adding. A third, fourth, and even fifth opinion would really help with this article. --Alan W (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely correct about the need for more information in the drum set area. When I was originally taking notes for this article (actually a research paper for school) I was bogged down by the enormous amount of information I found, and focused instead on the areas that seemed essential. I will write up some more content in that section of the article at some point. (Not making promises as to when, but probably sometime soon.) Kakofonous (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with getting more opinions on this article is that there are so very few here that might be able to provide one that was informed! (And which users they are I have no idea.) There might be some people I know off-wiki that could provide some constructive comments, though. Kakofonous (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:35 UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


The Last Temptation of Krust was recently listed as a Good Article. Looking for feedback/comments on ways to further improve the article's quality. Thanks for taking a look. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review
Response to semi-automated peer review

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:37 UTC)

William Lowndes Yancey

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


This article was recently promoted to GA, and further general or specific feedback would be appreciated before taking it to FAC. Thanks -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:39 UTC)

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


This is the second peer review request for this article. The first one can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi/archive1. We have tried to get this to FA status, but both attempts at that failed. I am resubmitting it for peer review, because I want to make this FA along with the recently demoted Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and I believe that it is almost FA quality. Any comments on improving them shall be very much appreciated. Thanks, Greg Jones II 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:40 UTC)

Power of Love (Harry and the Potters album)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:42 UTC)

Scarred for Life

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:43 UTC)

The Enchanted Ceiling

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:45 UTC)

A Magical Christmas of Magic with Harry and the Potters and Wizardly Friends and Magical Singing Creatures

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:46 UTC)

Voldemort Can't Stop the Rock!

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:47 UTC)

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


This is the second peer review request for this article. The first one can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace/archive1. This article was removed from FA status due to issues with citing IMDb as a source, which User:Movieguy999 submitted in its FAR, which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. I am resubmitting it for peer review, because I believe I want to get this to FA status, like User:The Filmaker did before this article got demoted. Any comments on improving it to meet FAC standards would be appreciated. Thanks, Greg Jones II 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:48 UTC)

Bushism

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…This is an unusual article. I am interested in what others think about it. Thus I have brought it to peer review


Thanks,

Marlith T/C 05:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:49 UTC)

Illinois High School Association

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…the article was rated a B some time ago by two different projects, and there have been significant edits since then. I would very much like to try and make the next steps needed to bring this article up a notch before requesting formal review.


Thanks and Peace,

LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:51 UTC)

Dallas Mavericks

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it's an important article, and I (someday) want to get it to GA, or (getting my hopes way too high) even FA.


Thanks,

Basketball110 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:52 UTC)

Mar Roxas

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure that this article is in neutral point of view. I also want to suggest on what parts of the article are in need of improvements and in need of revisions. I also want this to be listed as a Good Article and hopefully as a Featured Article.

Thanks,

Kevin Ray (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:53 UTC)

Dubstep

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to see it as a featured article (it's currently GA), and would like some feedback as to how it could get to FA status. In particular I'd be interested in how much sense this makes to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter, which is my main concern having read it from start to finish. Thanks, - Zeibura (Talk) 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:54 UTC)

Eric Brewer (ice hockey)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I started minorly working on this article about two years ago, but over the past year have really put my focus into making it a top-quality Wikipedia article. I'm confident that a review of this article will help me in sucessfully bringing this article to featured article standards.

Thanks, – Canada Nurmsook! (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the work you've done on this article has suprised me completely. I didn't know this was being done at all. That being said, I like what I see. But I think it still needs quite some work to get to FA. In terms of references, wow. That is good to see, and will go far in any ruther work. The international section is also extensive. However, there is a lack of content in regard to his NHL career, which only includes three paragraphs for three teams. While not entirely familiar with Brewer as a player, I would think there could be at least three for the Oilers, knowing how good he was with them, and two for both the Islanders and Blues. If possible, it wouldn't hurt to convert the awards section to prose, although that isn't entirely needed. Maybe some information on his style of play, as in offensive or defensive defenceman; I follow hockey, and have no idea what type of defenceman Brewer is, so think about someone who's never followed hockey before. Finally, you got to find a better image of Brewer. I know when I was working on the Joe Sakic article, it got negative response for having the back of Sakic. While it is difficult to find such images, but put up a request for it, and search for it, you will find it.

In conclusion, its a great start, but needs more information before you will pass an FA nomination. Good luck on the article, I look forward to seeing what gets done with it. Nice to see such a high quality article on a player who is quite frankly, not a major star. Hope this helps you on your way. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:55 UTC)

Stigand

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take it to Featured Article, and welcome any suggestions for how to accomplish that. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks,

Ealdgyth | Talk 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:57 UTC)

SummerSlam (1994)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has potential to become a Good Article. I plan to nominate it after I receive some feedback on any improvements that can be made. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:58 UTC)

Royal Rumble (2005)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article has the potential to become a Good Article, and would like suggestions on improvement.


Thanks,

13 of Diamonds (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 18:59 UTC)

Conveyed concept

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to make sure it meets guidelines…


Thanks,

Thedosmann (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a number of references and sources in the cite.php format. I also added more content and made some minor editing changes in response to the above suggestions. If more editing or changes would be helpful I would appreciate suggestions. Thedosmann (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:00 UTC)

Aang

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I know all the problems in this article, but I was wondering if anybody could actually help with fixing it, as every reviewer has just given general statements without any specific advice on how to fix it. I hope I could recruit some help to this dying article. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few suggestions to improve the content of the article. I hope they're helpful.

  • Done
  • The article should not be explaining other topics. The paragraph effectively provides a brief setting for the reader to follow. If the reader wants to find more on "Airbenders", etc., the reader simply clicks on the associated link.
  • Done
  • The law does not need to be quoted in the text. However, it is quoted in the citation if you look at the end of the citation.
  • No, it is non-free and has fair use rationale.
  • I'm afraid there is no information. I have been searching for months on end and have not found more than there is.
  • Will fix...
  • Done - Explained in the first paragraph of the plot overview section
  • Done - I explained what he means to the best of my ability.
  • Done - Hope it is better
  • Done - Added clause to explain it is an episode
  • Katara is one of the main characters and she is established in the lead.
  • Included in tense problem mentioned above: will fix...
  • Done
  • There is not much of a storyline and removing anything might leave a gap in the storyline, making it confusing.
  • Done

I fixed some problems. I will fix more later. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 02:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:02 UTC)

Iolani School

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think some feedback on how the article is now would be helpful for me and other editors improving the article. Comments on structure, information, and tone would especially help.

Thanks!

Midorihana~いいですね？ 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:03 UTC)

Lisa Gerrard

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I think the page meets with the FA criteria and because she is a great singer.


Thanks,

Glitter1959 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:04 UTC)

Warwick Armstrong

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because while it was recently listed as a Good Article, the GA reviewer was concerned about the amount of cricket jargon it contains. Having grown up with cricket, I find it difficult to disassociate myself from the terminology and write for a general audience. I would appreciate a reviewer with little or no knowledge of cricket looking at the article with the goal of ensuring all jargon is either removed, linked to an appropriate article or explained in the article body or as a footnote. Of course, other suggestions on style, MOS issues etc. would still be very welcome. The goal, of course, is Featured Article status.

Thanks,

Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:06 UTC)

Clan Maclachlan

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because i'd like some feedback on how to get it up to GA standards and beyond. Any suggestions, corrections and comments would really help.


Thanks,

Celtus (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:07 UTC)

Last of the Summer Wine

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently listed as a good article and I now wish to receive feedback on what can be revised to bring it up to FA standards as I begin to revise.

Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:08 UTC)

Redd Foxx

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because it is a well written article and informative biography that should be considered for a featured article


Thanks,

Pensil (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 3 February 2008, 19:09 UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

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

I've listed this article for peer review because...

It has just achieved GA status. The GA editor very helpfully showed us how to complete a seperate notes/refs style citation system to deal with multiple citations from the same source. I have subsequently checked and copy-edited as much as I am able and can't myself think of any further improvements.

On the points previously raised about images and bullet points, I can't think of an appropriate image to demonstrate a behavioural disorder of childhood! The bullet points mark out the points of the 'official' diagnostic criteria for RAD. I can easily remove these if required but I do not think that would assist clarity.

I would like this article to achieve FA status if at all possible.

Many thanks! Fainites barley 20:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 4 February 2008, 22:57 UTC)

Person Centred Planning

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is ready for the intense scrutiny of Wikipedia editors, and will benefit from their improvements and suggestions.

It is about an approach and set of values that is gaining ground internationally across the social care sector, quite an exciting way of enabling the person to receive personalised support from services that previously might have been impersonal and unresponsive to what really matters to people.

I think it's worth attention and improvement not just because it is notable, but because it is interesting and exciting - a collaborative co-created approach not unlike wikipedia itself.


Thanks,

Max (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Scartol

Per your request, I've had a look at this article. It appears to be focused on an important topic, but as a layperson with absolutely no knowledge of the field being discussed, I feel lost and confused by it. Much of the prose is vague, and I feel as though it's been written largely by people in the field for people in the field. Let's look at the lead, for example:

  • Also note that the "including older people" phrase at the end will – in the minds of most readers – be applied to the noun closest to it, in this case "methods of service delivery", which makes no sense. I'd say something like "...with other individuals – especially older people – who are disempowered by...".

I suppose my point here is – and this is something I've said frequently about software designers – it's vital to write about your topic in a way that the uninitiated will be able to understand. If this article has indeed been written by folks in the field of study being discussed, you'll need to find ways to think like an outsider: Question your assumptions about what's being discussed, and try to write sentences that require no prior knowledge (or as little as possible) about the concepts involved.

Some other points in the body of the article:

Good luck with this article – the editors involved obviously have a great knowledge about and passion for this subject. The next step is to translate it into a format that the rest of the world can access. Please let me know if you have any other questions. – Scartol • Tok 15:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Roger Davies

Thanks for the invitation to peer-review this. I'll comment very broadly as my suggestions (and they are, of course, only suggestions) will considerably change the content and structure of the article.

As ever, if you have any questions, please contact me, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 4 February 2008, 23:53 UTC)

Harry and the Potters (album)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its better to expand this article for how many folds. Try to run for a re-PR and you'll get reviews. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thanks for commenting. Whats folds mean? I am looking for any ideas or suggestions, on what I can add to the 'background' section as the band is not in the media much, and what information I could include in a 'lyrical content' subheading, aswell as how I can format the 'personnel'. I would highly appreciate any and all suggestions or direct edits. Thankyou! Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to bulk up the article for how many times from its size (as of now). But it does not mean you really have to work hard on it. Just make sure you have the production or what transpired of making that album. And you have it. The album was inspired by JK's novel. Its a good start. Expand that and be sure you have proper inline citations. For lyrical content, find some album reviews. You might find several helpful informations (you might also find musical style their). --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks again. Hpfan9374 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:43 UTC)

Over the Edge (1999)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I have worked hard on it and I would like to nominate this article as a GA and a future FA.


Thanks,

TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Can you find any more pictures for the article? Just one would work. iMatthew 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
much better. thanks! iMatthew 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; but I'd go onto outline a third feud; possibly The Ministry/Union feud. D.M.N. (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will get to it later.--TrUCo9311 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:46 UTC)

Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's about a forgotten but fascinating part of Canadian broadcasting history and I'd like to see if it can be improved.

Thanks,

Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:48 UTC)

Blue Heelers

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently been improved very much and we are trying to improve the article so that it may reach Good Article status. Behind the Scenes/Production information has recently been added, though the article could do with more, and it could also do with more references. We are interested in seeing the article from somebody else's perspective and improving it to GA status. We are really asking for pointers and weak points in regard to the article and are prepared to carry out any pointers which may be suggested.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Daniel99091 (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:49 UTC)

Texas

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it was once a Good Article, but it was removed from the list.


Thanks,

Basketball110 17:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:51 UTC)

Robert Cormier

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this for a few days, and it already looks better. I have added an infobox, added some info about banning of his books, footnotes, etc. I would like to know where is could be improved, so I could get it up to at least a Good Article.


Thanks,

Soxred93 | talk count bot 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:52 UTC)

Weather fronts

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think it is a good article, and is very near FA standards.

Thanks,

Juliancolton (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 5 February 2008, 15:53 UTC)

Lost: Missing Pieces

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
On December 18, I began work in my sandbox and today I finished. I am running this peer review alongside a good article nomination. As soon as that passes, I will make the article a featured article candidate. Lost: Missing Pieces are thirteen short mobisodes/webisodes spun-off of the popular television series Lost. Infobox Television is being used in the article. Should I be using Infobox tvseason or should I design a new infobox that could be used in this article, as well as that of 24: Conspiracy? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 6 February 2008, 01:35 UTC)

Ross Sea party

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been developed from a Start-rated article into a much more comprehensive account of this expedition. I would welcome advice as to how it can be further improved with a view to a higher quality rating & possible GA nomination, with particular reference to accuracy, readability, general style.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is better here than on the Terra Nova article, but the crew list at the beginning of the article is again ugly. A more detailed introduction of the crew would give some idea of the principal actors in the story.
  • Although the focus should be away from Shackleton's adventures, I think his story is a little too underplayed here - it gives the impression he couldn't land and then spent two years hanging around on board Endurance before returning to civilization and considering that he should probably rescue the Ross Sea party.
  • I'm not sure party should be capitalized in Ross Sea party - they were the party sent to the Ross Sea, but I don't think they were officially named the Ross Sea Party - minor point anyway.
  • Web references need expanding to give details of title, publisher, access dates etc. Yomanganitalk 12:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have accepted these and revised the article accordingly. The personnel section has been redone in narrative form, concentrating on the main players rather than listing everyone, and I agree this looks and reads better. Shackleton has been elevated to a bit more than a passing mention, in the intro and the Rescue section. I have adopted the Ross Sea party (not Party) format except in the article title. I've also sorted out the web references as best I can (I inherited these from a previous editor).

Further comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me now. I'd support it at FAC. Yomanganitalk 00:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the suggestion above, I would encourage you to consider renaming the article itself "Ross Sea party" for consistency. MaxVeers (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about this so I'll do as you suggest Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 6 February 2008, 20:06 UTC)

Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hi there, as part of a continuing process of improving all Aston Villa F.C. related articles, I have put this up for peer review. I am currently at a loss to know exactly what to add to this list. What needs to be done to improve it, what do we want in a football "Records" list. The ultimate intention is to take this to WP:FLC after this review. Thanks, Woody (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:14 UTC)

Torchwood (series 1)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Right, I've started on this article and I need some insight into how it's going. I am aiming for an FL. How am I doing with my condensing of the articles?


Thanks,

WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.☆ 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:32 UTC)

Liverpool F.C.

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review
previous PR

This peer review discussion has been closed.

After the last FAC failed, I fel a new Peer Review is needed to addresss the concerns raised there, and ready the article for another FAC run in the future NapHit (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

First time I've really closely looked at this article so forgive me if I go over old ground or comment on stuff that's already been commented on.

That's about all I have right now. Hope some of the comments are helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these remarks; User:NapHit appears to have responded to some of the other points you've raised, and I'll try and think about those that remain. Robotforaday (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:34 UTC)

Green

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The article looks pretty decent now. I was wondering what improvement is needed for this article (currently GA) to pass FAC. Any input is appreciated. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a big contributor to this article and am curious if anyone can see anything we might have missed. Wrad (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wrad. I want to point out that you missed Lebanon in the map of countries with green flags. the Flag of Lebanon clearly displays a green cedar (which is a national tree and not an islamic symbol). CG (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(First I should say that I'm no expert on colour but) I've had a read through and actually was a little surprised by what wasn't in there. I'd assume an article on something as basic as the colour green would have to try to explain it to someone who had never seen green before (blind person, alien etc) and I'm not sure it does this particularly well.

  • It varies too much to pin it down the way you're asking. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another good question. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our weakest section is the sciences section. We just haven't had a science expert work on it yet. We need a section describing how green is "created" at the atomic level. That would answer a lot of your questions. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:36 UTC)

Russian Business Network

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because:

All constructive comments gratefully received,


Thanks,

Jart351 (talk)


It looks like a great start. You've collected a good number of sources, and for an article on an internet organization, it is natural that most of these are web sites. Here are some things that need fixing:

Good luck! Lesgles (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:37 UTC)

Dwarf planet

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I want to bring this to an FA-level. I have added all I could think about and now I need some feedback before I go ahead and nominate it. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delldot

Here are some thoughts:

  • Cannot find what you are referring to. Can you be a bit specific?Nergaal

(talk) 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done That particular sentence is under Dwarf planet#Orbital dominance. There are a couple cases where a word is repeated twice in two sentences. For example, can this sentence be reworded to be less repetitive? "There are several other theories that try to differentiate between planets and dwarf planets, but the current definition of what constitutes a planet uses this concept." I don't know if you can avoid saying "planet" twice, but maybe you can avoid the third use. Here's another one: "Vesta, however, appears to deviate from hydrostatic equilibrium only because of a large impact which occurred after Vesta solidified" Vesta Vesta ;-) So I suggest you give the whole article a reading looking specifically for cases of repetitive wording. delldot talk 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing illicitly from work right now and have to go do something. More later ;) delldot on a public computer talk 11:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so picky, it really is a great article! Note that I know nothing about the subject, so this review can only have advice on the writing, not the facts. delldot on a public computer talk 11:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks; I plan to do it once I get all the necessary references.Nergaal (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more things:

  • don't worry, the article will be reviewed during nominations anyways. Thanks for the tips, since I really needed some starting points. They were really helpful, and I will continue to work on them for the next few days. Nergaal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to hear it :) But I do still recommend mentioning it at the relevant wikiproject so you can get some expert eyes on it. delldot talk 06:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:43 UTC)

Prague Spring

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is of course far from perfect, but I would like to get it to GA status eventually and would like to know what others think should be improved. The article was not long ago split into 2: Prague Spring and Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) and also contains another relevant page called Normalization (Czechoslovakia), so please check those for additional info, also tips on formatting would be appreciated

Thanks,

The Dominator (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

Just going to run down the issues as I read the article, keeping the good article standards in mind as I do so.

That ought to give you a start. If you have any more specific questions, or need any other help, let me know. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review Round 2: The article is looking much better. The referencing is really becoming much more comprehensive. There are a few more tweaks needed before this would pass a GA review, but they are becoming relatively minor compared to the earlier problems I noted above.
  • The references need proper formatting. The placement of references looks very good. It looks, from a cursory glance, that every thing that I believe should be referenced has been. However, properly cited references have the following format:
  • For books: LastName, FirstName (Date). Title of Book. Publisher City, Publisher Name, page #'s, ISBN#
  • For print periodicals and journals: LastName, FirstName (Date). "Article Title", Title of Journal. Issue& Volume of Journal, page #'s.
  • For websites: LastName, FirstName (Date). "Article Title(linked to URL)", Title of Website, publisher of website, retreival date.
  • Consider using the citation templates to organize this information. For example, at reference #26, you call it "Radio CZ article on Tom Stoppard." This is inadequate. using the ((cite web)) template, like this:
  • ((cite web | last = Mastalir | first = Linda | date = 2006-06-28 | title = Tom Stoppard's "Rock 'n' Roll" | url = http://www.radio.cz/en/article/80581 | work = Current Affairs Archive | publisher = Radio Prague | accessdate = 2008-01-23))
  • The above will give us this:
  • Mastalir, Linda (2006-06-28). "Tom Stoppard's "Rock 'n' Roll"". Current Affairs Archive. Radio Prague. Retrieved 2008-01-23.
  • if the citation templates are too cumbersome, you can format all of these in plain text, but I like using them (see WP:CITET for a full list) because it does the formatting for you. All references should be brought up to proper format.
  • While we're at it, there are a few inaccuracies and other problems I spotted. Tom Stoppard is a playwrite, and "Rock 'n' Roll" is a play of his. It looks from your article like he was a musician of some sort. Move it to the Literature paragraph below it. Also, the "See Also" section should ONLY contain links to articles you haven't linked to already. The Soviet Invasion, Normalization, and Dubcek articles are already linked, so shouldn't be included here.
If you fix up these few problems, this would be GA ready. Good luck, and if you need any more help, just drop me a note! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Sources: By the way, you can ask me questions here. I have watchlisted this page now, so there is no need to ask on my talk page every time. I will see the question here and respond here. Now, back to the referencing. The important thing about referencing is that if the information exists, it is your obligation to include it. If it doesn't exist, well, then you can't say anything about it. Now, many reliable sources don't have authors. For example, the phone transcript of the Brezhnev conversation that you cited. Its an AWESOME source, but it obviously has no author. No bother, just make the reference as complete as possible. for that one, I would use:
  • ((cite web | title = Document #81: Transcript of Leonid Brezhnev's Telephone Conversation with Alexander Dubček, August 13, 1968 | date = 1998 | url = http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/DOC_readers/psread/doc81.htm | work = The Prague Spring '68 | publisher = The Prague Spring Foundation | accessdate = 2008-01-23))
  • Which will give you:
  • With regard to the reliability of sources, having no author is not necessarily a concern, but having no author, publisher, copyright date, or ANY sort of atribution may be a problem. Just look at each source individually, and say "Would anyone have a reason to doubt the validity of this" Be honest with yourself. Generally, if something is true enough and important enough, enough people have covered it such that there is usally more than one place to find that information. Finding backup on your sources is generally a good idea anyways. If there are any more questions, just let me know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help, I'm just waiting for a copyedit from one of the peer review volunteers that has agreed to help and it's off to GA review. I'm a little concerned about the lack of images in this article, though; we had one before, but it was deleted.--The Dominator (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good articles do not require images. They only require that images, where used, are used appropriately. If no freely availible images exist, then oh well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think you could look at 1, 2 and 3 yourself? 'Cause unless I'm missing something I don't see anymore bibliographic info. As for #12 I'll see what I can do, but I am using the manifesto itself as a reference to what the manifesto says, is that OK? And where do I find bibliographic info for something that's forty years old?--The Dominator (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do. As far as the Manifesto, is it republished in a book or something? If so, you may want to use that book as the source, and say something like "Yada yada Manifesto by So and So, republished in..." and give the book publication info... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did what I could with the references. That Dubcek reference (3) is a tad sketchy. It'd probably pass GA, but still, are there NO OTHER Dubcek biographies (even print, online, ANYTHING) that is more reliable? I had to really dig to come up with ANY informtion on the publisher or source for that one, and I didn't see anything there that I would not expect to find at a more reliable place. Just an idea. The other two (1 and 2) also required a little digging, but at least those looked a little better. Even those, I wouldn't give up entirely on trying to finding alternate sources. The first source you find is not always the best... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the manifesto: Currently I live in a small town and the local library is... well, terrible so I don't really have access to books at the moment, I did a Google books search and all I could find were vague references to the manifesto, although it played a fairly important role during the reforms. As for a biography of Dubcek I'm sure there are better ones, and I'll look, in fact there are probably better printed ones that are already referenced in this article at some point.--The Dominator (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good deal. Remember, there's no rush on this. If it takes a few days or weeks to dig up your original source of the Manifesto, so be it, or if it takes longer to find a better source for the ones i noted, so be it... Just don't forget about it, but you look to care enough about this, and I trust it will get done as soon as feasible. Remember, Wikipedia is in no rush... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:44 UTC)

Heuschrecke 10

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA class and has had a lot of content added to it, see this diff. I want some feed back as to what it still currently needs, or what is "wrong" with it. Thanks, Dreamy § 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed what can be fixed from that, anything else? Dreamy § 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:47 UTC)

Medieval household

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm pretty happy with this article, and would like to put it up for FA. I'd like to get some input though, on language/clarity in particular, and formatting. As for the content, I'd be happy if someone more expert could look at the "Regional variations" bit.

Thanks,

Lampman (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:49 UTC)

Edward VII

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Any comments welcome. I've run the automated reviewer already. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:50 UTC)

Harry and the Potters discography

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has failed to achieve featured list status twice. I would like to know how I can improve the article, so that it follows the criteria. Length has been addressed and now am wondering how it can become "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" - I believe it requires third-party sources, however I am unable of finding any. I am looking for any suggestions about improving the article, meeting the criteria or if you would be so kind, directly editing the article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:51 UTC)

Jake Delhomme

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've made some substantive improvements on this page over the last several months, and I'd like to know what more needs to be done to improve it to GA status. I know it needs pictures, but I can't find any free pics, and I'm really hesitant to piss off the fair use Nazis on this site. I'm more focused on the copyediting at this point; pictures will come later. Anthony Hit me up... 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:56 UTC)

Eli Manning

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to elevate this article to GA and eventually FA status, and I would like an outside opinion on the work that has been done so far before I apply for a GA nomination. EDIT I know the page needs to be cited better, and I am working on it. Please give your opinion on the article itself, not its references. Thanks. Edit made: 03:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,

J.delanoygabsadds 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:57 UTC)

Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

The article has changed dramatically in the last two weeks. Are there any ways in which it can be improved? Are there any gaps in the information provided? I realize that the section "Economic impact" may be too short compared to the other sections. Do you recommend an expansion?

Thanks,

Dem393 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 19:58 UTC)

Abani Mukherji

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that the initial article went through some substantial improvements in content in the aftermath of its DYK posting, and I would like to know if there are ways to improve also its layout, language, style and content further to make it a FAC.

Thanks, Soman (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a well-referenced and interesting article. However, instead of citing the same book (OP Ralhan) 8 times in the references, make two sections ("notes" and "references") that each book is cited once. See Western_Chalukya_Empire#Notes and Western_Chalukya_Empire#References for an example.Bakaman 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:01 UTC)

Faith No More discography

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how it can be further improved before I submit it to WP:FLC.

Thanks,

Balthazar (T|C) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:02 UTC)

Allen Iverson

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's an important article, and I want it to be maintained.


Thanks,

Basketball110 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:03 UTC)

Shaquille O'Neal

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this is in close grasp of GA, and possibly FA, and therefore need to "scratch" that bit about "close grasp", and say GOT GA, and possibly FA, but reviewing it is the only way to do that. If you can understand that, you're up for the challenge.


Thanks,

Basketball110 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:04 UTC)

Pat Riley

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's become a little shaky. It could be better.

Thanks,

Basketballoneten 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:06 UTC)

John Lennon

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a scan by people that are not involved in editing Lennon. Thanks, --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 8 February 2008, 20:07 UTC)

Terra Nova Expedition

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was recently given GA status after intensive development and rewriting, and I think it can go further, to Feature Article status perhaps. I'd welcome comments which address 4 basic questions: Is it accurate? Is it comprehensive - anything important left out or underplayed? Is it fair (given the contentious atmosphere around anything to do with Scott)? and is it readable?

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead is poor: it isn't a summary of the article, stresses the principal aim without any references as to why it needs stressing (and hence is assuming some prior knowledge), and redirects the reader off to a subsection of an inferior article as its final act. If the "Scott was a hero/fool" debate isn't worth covering in more than a couple of paragraphs here (and in my opinion it isn't), then it isn't worth mentioning in the lead.
I've amended the first para of the introduction to remove any ambiguity about the main objective. To strengthen this intro as a summary of the article I've transferred the 2nd para to Background, and have extended the third paragraph. I think it is necessary to retain a mention of the controversies, or "debate", but I have removed the link to the Scott article and I have slightly expanded my "Aftermath" section to demonstrate the nature, but not the detail, of these issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit listy - the member list could be rewritten as prose: it's an ugly introduction to the rest of the well-constructed article, the formatting is inconsistent and the links to photographs incomplete. The chapter-like subheadings in "Voyage out" are unnecessary and distracting and the Appendices could be moved to "See also" or absorbed into the text. Appendix 1 is particularly uninspiring.
I've converted the personnel lists into a prose paragraph which doesn't mention them all but says something about the more important figures. This has had a knock-on effect on the Preparation section, which I have revised into new sub-sections - Background, Personnel, Finance & Expedition Plan. The content is generally as it was before, though presented slightly differently. As to the photolinks agaisnst certain names, these were placed by an earlier editor (together with others that no longer worked and which I got rid of some time ago. I've looked at them again and decided that only the one linked to Herbert Ponting is worth saving. This is in "See also", and the rest have gone' I have removed the sub-headings in "Voyage Out" - I agree they don't work well. As to the appendices, I've got rid of Nos 1 and 3, and transferred 2 into the text. No 1 had, on reflection, nothing to add to the article, and 3 was probbaly too trivial to warrant the space. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide on the capitalisation and italicisation of Terra Nova Expedition. I'd go for all caps, no italics, but whatever you choose be consistent.
It will be Terra Nova Expedition as the formal title of the expedition, Terra Nova for the ship, and "the expedition" (no caps) for general reference. I will go through again for consistency. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two books listed under sources are missing ISBN numbers.
ISBN numbers added. I am using a 1913 edition of Scott's Last Expedition and that doesn't have one. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. Yomanganitalk 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better. You have a 1913 edition of Scott's Last Expedition? If it has the dust jacket you could sell it and fund your own mini expedition (You got the two ISBNs I was referring to anyway). I removed the "See..." sentence from the end of the lead. The lead should be self-contained, and as an introduction you should assume the reader will then read the rest of the article. I noticed a few other points:
  • Many of the distances and weights appear only as Imperial measurements (a few are converted but not many)
I have added metric equivalents to all distances and weights Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dashes need looking at (I can never work out what dashes to use where, but there are plenty of people who are expert in this)
I think I've observed the protocols for hyphens, dashes etc but I'm sure someone will tell me I haven't Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of the wikilinks are piped to Antarctica - I'd suggest having a hunt around for the articles to see if they exist anywhere, but if not leave them as redlinks rather than piping them all to the same article (If anybody complains about them at FAC my former incarnation will metaphorically kick them up the arse)
I've removed several Antarctica pipes as I've found the articles existing in their own right. In one case I found a better pipe Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on the self-referential rhetorical style you've introduced in the Aftermath section. It's a personal preference, but I find it jars with the rest of the article. If you are providing a brief overview you should be able to make that clear without a statement of intent. It won't stop me supporting, but I'd prefer to see it more in the style of the rest of the article. Yomanganitalk 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the wording to strike a more neutral tone.
Incidentally, my 1913 SLE is second impression, so no expedition funds there Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, take it to FAC.Yomanganitalk 16:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 13:36 UTC)

Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I am currently editing the GA Harry and the Potters article and the FLC Harry and the Potters discography. I have asked for a peer review for this article along with other albums by Harry and the Potters to receive feedback to edit these articles to achieve B or even GA status. I believe this could also help achieve featured article and featured list status on the other articles. I would appreciate all comments and suggestions on expanding this article and all other Harry and the Potters albums, as the band does not receive much press 'attention', I would like to know what lyrical content can be displayed and how this can be formatted.

Thanks, Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reaper X

What else can I say: expand, expand, expand! What kind of background informaton led to the decision to make this EP? Did the bands do any promotion gigs? Was there any reviews, any critical reception? Most importantly, there has to be references. Your best to look at any articles on albums that are of good or featured status, and I find that is the best spot for inspiration. Beyond that, all I have to say good luck! -- Reaper X 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 20:56 UTC)

Timeline of Jane Austen

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Simmaren and Awadewit have started working on a series of articles about Jane Austen. This is the first in that series. We are planning on taking this to FLC, so please critique accordingly. We would like to thank all Janeites and non-Janeites in advance for their assistance on this project! Awadewit | talk 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick gripe - references 11, 16 and 18 don't have page references and surely can't all be from one page each, can they? I think FAC buffs might be a little put off by this. Seegoon (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that they are not from the same page, but they are all from the same 3-4 pages. We should indicate that. Awadewit | talk 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 12 is a similar case. Awadewit, do you have ready access to the cited book? Simmaren (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added page numbers for all of the book chronologies. Awadewit | talk 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also - should references 18 and 20 be consolidated into one? Seegoon (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Awadewit | talk 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 20:58 UTC)

Cranford, New Jersey

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because there is quite a bit of information in the article and im not quite sure how to manage all of it. I'd also like feedback on areas that need further research and/or pictures.


Thanks,

Mystache (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably assess this article at the Start or early B classes on the assessment scale. There's some information starting to be collected here, but organization and structure is lacking, so it's not quite there yet. Inline citations are used, but not nearly enough to pass the Good article criteria (much less the [[WP:WIAFA}Featured article criteria]]).

Other issues include:

Hope this points you in the right direction. Hope to see Cranford nominated for GA or FA soon! Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 20:59 UTC)

Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it to FA status. I will respond to comments as quickly as possible. Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:00 UTC)

CNR Radio

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I've created it from scratch (it's about North America and Canada's first radio network) and would like a few second opinions, suggestions and contributions.


Thanks,

Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:GeeJo

A nice, neat little article on a fairly obscure subject. Here are my first impressions, mostly minor fixes:

Marked some done items. Dl2000 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and some more. Dl2000 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... all PR items addressed. Dl2000 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SriMesh | talk 04:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:02 UTC)

Flea (musician)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The road to FAC nears, but in order to completely quell any issues that may arise, I've started this Peer Review. I know there are some editors out there who are just dying to help. NSR77 TC 01:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:WesleyDodds

Comments (more might be added with time):

I added something Billy Corgan said but I couldn't find anything from Fieldy. If you wouldn't mind finding the source I'll add the quote. NSR77 TC 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock" countdown on VH1 from 2000 or 2001, fourth episode (the Chili Peppers ranked at number 30). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake; thanks for fixing it. NSR77 TC 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did most everything except for adding the Ben Stiller bit. And Flea's role in the television show doesn't actually involve him speaking but rather strange...noises. If you look on YouTube you may find something. I couldn't find a suitable picture of him in any movie for the life of me but something will eventually turn up. NSR77 TC 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty good article overall. However, the big problem with the article is that it once it gets to the formation of the Chili Peppers, it largely becomes a history of the band with Flea's involvement discussed when appropriate. Instead, think of the Chili Peppers as the job Flea holds, and try to focus on making it more biographical. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, his life is the Chili Peppers. Unlike Frusciante, Flea doesn't make solo records and collaborate in that form. Anything written about the Peppers in here is essential, or else the reader wouldn't understand what's going on. Kiedis' biography Scar Tissue sees him talking mainly about his early years, the Chili Peppers and his love life. Not too much else. And the "RHCP formation" section only refers to the band once. NSR77 TC 23:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from User:CloudNine

Several comments (and musings):

That was how the article was initially written but Grim-Gym felt it needed to be the same throughout. I'll figure it out with him. NSR77 TC 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was mentioned in the Behind the Music episode and I added everything that was there. NSR77 TC 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wouldn't mind pointing out specifics (I did whatever I could find) that'd be great. NSR77 TC 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There'll be more to come. CloudNine (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:04 UTC)

Alba Iulia

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs quite a bit of improvement.


Thanks,

Basketballoneten 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:06 UTC)

Ultima I: The First Age of Darkness

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer-review, since I've been working on it for a while now and feel that I've managed to include all the basic important information so far. I'm hoping to get a re-rating by the computer and video games project, and maybe go for good article status. In particular, I would like someone who's not familiar with the game to read through it and point out anything that may not make sense.

Thanks very much!

PirateMink 11:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:07 UTC)

NoitulovE

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been working on creating a standardised layout for television advertisements based on the current television episode FAs, as current offerings (such as Cog (television commercial)) are somewhat lacklustre in execution. noitulovE is the most comprehensive one to date, and has been rated as a Good Article, but there're a few things that need checking before I start thinking about putting it through the WP:FAC meat-grinder. What I'm particularly looking for is someone to read through and point out any passages that could do with a copy edit. I've read the thing too many times now to spot even the most egregious errors. Any opinions on the infobox, the scrolling awards list, or any other aspect would also be greatly appreciated :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:08 UTC)

George Stephanopoulos

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because a lot could be added to this article. Some of it's sections could be larger, but I don't have all of that information, so peer review is the best way to get it.


Thanks,

Basketballoneten 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:10 UTC)

Paris Hilton discography

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want to make it a Featured List.


Thanks,

— Jhn* 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:11 UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Zeitgeist (Smashing Pumpkins album)/archive1

(Peer review added on Monday 11 February 2008, 21:12 UTC)

History of Ipswich Town F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been expanded over the past couple of weeks from 20K with two citations to 44K with 85 citations, primarily by me and User:Dweller. I think it's pretty comprehensive in terms of the history of the club but, no doubt, as I've become too close to it, the prose needs work and there may be clear errors that I'm missing since I can no longer see the wood for the trees! My ultimate goal is to take this article to WP:FAC but won't do so until this PR runs a good and thorough course. As always, I humbly bare my soul open to the scrutiny of the community and thank you in advance for the time and effort you may spend providing me with feedback. I will endeavour to handle all comments, criticism etc as openly and quickly as possible. Cheers everyone... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 February 2008, 17:36 UTC)

Atom

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dear Peer Reviewer,

Over the past few months this article has undergone significant expansion and, hopefully, improvement. I believe it has become a reasonably comprehensive, high-level summary on the topic of atoms. The article is still in need of references in a few sections and I am working to address that concern. My hope is that lay readers will find this an approachable article on the topic that doesn't require a degree in physics. It would be greatly appreciated if you could spend a few minutes reviewing the article and seeing what needs to be improved. I'm especially interested in knowing about parts of the article that may need a better explanation, as well as any other topics you believe should be covered. (Note that the article does not cover the topic of elements in great detail, as these are the focus of the chemical element article.)

Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Atom/archive2.


(Peer review added on Tuesday 12 February 2008, 18:09 UTC)

The Hobbit

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because a few months ago it had a lot of activity from several editors, all making great improvements. The article has been stable for a while now, and I'm looking for input to guide it to the GA and eventually FA status.

Thank you

Davémon (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, an interesting point. I think the editors have been following the model of The Hobbits 'big brother' The Lord of the Rings which had got to FA. Striking a balance between the two models may be the best course of action. --Davémon (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Albero Poveda, Jaume. "Narrative Models in Tolkien's Stories of Middle-Earth." Journal of English Studies 4 (2003): 7-22.
Burns, Marjorie. "Echoes of William Morris's Icelandic Journals in J. R. R. Tolkien." Studies in Medievalism 3, no. 3-4 (1991): 367-73.
Chance, Jane. "Is there a Text in this Hobbit? Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring." Literature/Film Quarterly 30.2 (2002): 79-85.
Croft, Janet Brennan. "Beyond the Hobbit: J. R. R. Tolkien's Other Works for Children." World Literature Today: A Literary Quarterly of the University of Oklahoma 78.1 (2004): 67-70.
Donaldson, Mara E. "Baptizing the Imagination: The Fantastic as the Subversion of Fundamentalism." Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 8, no. 2 [30] (1997): 185-97.
Green, William H. "King Thorin's Mines: The Hobbit as Victorian Adventure Novel." Extrapolation: A Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy 42.1 (2001): 53-64.
---. "'Where's Mama?' the Construction of the Feminine in the Hobbit." Lion and the Unicorn: A Critical Journal of Children's Literature 22.2 (1998): 188-95.
Hieatt, Constance B. "The Text of the Hobbit: Putting Tolkien's Notes in Order." English Studies in Canada 7.2 (1981): 212-24.
Livingston, Michael. "The Shell-Shocked Hobbit: The First World War and Tolkien's Trauma of the Ring." Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R.Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature 25, no. 1-2 [95-96] (2006): 77-92.
Morrison, Ronald D. "'I Much Prefer History, True Or Feigned': Tolkien and Literary History." Kentucky Philological Review 19 (2005): 36-42.
Sullivan, C. W.,III. "J. R. R. Tolkien and the Telling of a Traditional Narrative." Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 7, no. 1 [25] (1996): 75-82.
Timmons, Daniel. "Hobbit Sex and Sexuality in the Lord of the Rings." Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R.Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature 23, no. 3 [89] (2001): 70-9.

Victorianist (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, there isn't enough in the article about the reception of the book. The Themes and Style sections are quite scant in comparison to the publication history. I'll try to track down some of those essays and integrate some of the material in the appropriate places. Any help in the task would be much appreciated! --Davémon (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we could get some people to divide up the tasks of reading some of these articles and summarizing the claims into a few sentences, we could probably speed this process up. I'll try to read the first two articles listed here (Albero Poveda and Burns) since they're within the scope of my research. Victorianist (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The References section is a bit of a mess. I would suggest that we should rework the references so that they can be standardized as inline parenthetical citations, with a Works Cited (although it would not have that title, it would go under the current References section) list at the end. I believe this would make the article better conform to the Wikipedia style guide. Footnotes can go in a Notes section, instead of a References section. This way, we don't clog up the article with repeated footnotes to the same page (see the current references section in the article for an example of what I mean). Victorianist (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 01:29 UTC)

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I have been watching this page for ages and protecting it from vandals. I would like to see what this pages strong points and weak points are.


Thanks,

EndlessDan 13:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 01:30 UTC)

John the Painter

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am desirous of feedback. While I am an experienced writer and editor, this is one of the few Wikipedia articles I have created from scratch.


Thanks,

Historymike (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 01:31 UTC)

S Club

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that I have taken the article as far as I have on my own, and I'm looking for a little bit of help so I can nominate it for FA. I wonder if people who don't know anything about S Club can gain a very good knowledge of the band, and those who do know about them have anything to add. Greatly appriciated. :) Thanks, - ǀ Mikay ǀ 12:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 01:34 UTC)

Georgi Kinkladze

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a current good article about a recently retired Georgian footballer, with a format nominally based upon that of featured article Gilberto Silva. I'm looking for comments with a view to a possible featured article nomination at some point in the future. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, I seem to recall providing comments at the GA so it's a pleasure to keep this article going on its journey!

Hope these comments help, feel free, as ever, to give me a shout about any of them or if I can be of any help otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent feedback as always. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A career statistics section is hindered by the fact I have been unable to find a full breakdown of his Mretebi Tbilisi appearances. I might add an honours section, not much in the way of illustrious trophies, but he did win Georgian and Cypriot championships, and I could add his player of the year awards. I don't like to add fair use images, but one might be appropriate here. Or would it be better to investigate whether this CC licensed picture on Flickr could have the non-commercial restriction waived? Oldelpaso (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no-one said it'd be easy! I was up at Bramall Lane yesteday - there's a new Gio on the block, hardly the same calibre mind you! The flickr picture (in my opinion) is virtually worthless. Don't know how you'd get away with fair use unless it's a seminal moment in his career... any ideas? Stats-wise, no-one will complain if you add "n/a" where the a is available.... tough call when you have ex-Soviet professional careers to take into account. Not a chance! Anyway, great work (as always) so far.. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming up against more gaps than I thought I would. It affects honours too, Dinamo won the double every season Kinkladze was there, but I have no idea which cup finals he did or didn't play in. As for images, the first things I thought of were his goal against Southampton or his long range goal against Wales, but I haven't found an image of either. Presumably he did the obligatory pic-with-shirt-and-scarf when he signed for City. I'll have to dig through old programmes, and then find a scanner if I come across something suitable. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 01:38 UTC)

San Diego Chargers seasons

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hopful I can get this to FL status.


Thanks,

Buc (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's everything adressed. Anything else? Buc (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 13 February 2008, 01:43 UTC)

List of York City F.C. statistics and records

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


I have worked on this article over the last few days to fit closely the model devloped by List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records, which is on the verge of passing WP:FL. I'd like to see if that could reach this far, and how it could be done. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in seeing if there will need to be a replacement to the "European stastics" section which is present in several lists, for the bigger clubs. York have of coure never qualified for Europe, so there's nothing to write there. Another competition could be included, perhaps? And would this hinder its chances at WP:FL? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Obviously the general format works or the Ipswich list wouldn't have been featured and I wouldn't have copied it myself :-) The main thing is to include what's relevant to your club; stuff that'd be beneath the dignity of bigger clubs would be completely appropriate to smaller ones. Can't see any significant problems with your list, it's referenced, you've got a couple of images. Hope some of these comments help.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Otherwise it's pretty good - good format by the way ;-) ! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 17:46 UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because about three users have nominated this for a good article review in recent times. Yet it failed all three, it was suggested on the talk of that article that a peer review be set up as to identify the specific things which are needed to get this article up to top standard


Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I happened to stumble across this article through two pages: Requests for feedback and Peer review, so here's some advice. I am a Roman Catholic myself, and I know through experience that many aspects of the Church traditions have not been observed. For example, many people I know are reluctant to go to Mass every Sunday. In addition, not a lot of people are eager to join the priesthood. These are what I recommend for you: talk about the effect of the Church on the rest of society, how Catholics observe Church traditions, and how people of other faiths think about the Catholic religion. Bear in mind that these are only suggestions, you don't have to add these stuff to your article. In my opinion, the stuff I mentioned are, for the most part, debatable.--Dem393 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments but I cant include them in this article without violating one of the FA criteria. What you are suggesting is not able to do without useing "weasel words" which I have been advised below to eliminate. The content has to be factually based, concise, giving the facts without personal elaboration and opinions using neutral point of view. I am not too sure if there is a factual count of how many Catholics go to Mass all over the world. There is a reference to a page called Criticism of the Catholic Church which is the proper way to address a subject that can take up a whole page. Thanks for your comments! NancyHeise (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
moved to Belief section under Church subsection NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NancyHeise (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to do this since the references point to different paragraph numbers in the Catechism and I don't know of a way of combining different paragraph references. I do know how to combine same ones and I have done that. If you have any pointers for me on this issue, I am listening. Thanks, NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. Probably not good style to mix in-line and footnotes. Maybe a footnote could say, This section relies on Catechism paragraphs X, Y and Z. Probably not a big deal. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is copied from the FA criteria and is listed as one of the comments to address in the semiautomatic peer review below: "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." I don't think I can stray too much from the simple topic of what the Roman Catholic Church is without making the article too long to be an FA. Moral Theology can be its own Wikipedia page as well as many other Roman Catholic topics that are not covered here. What do you think about this, I would like to know your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the Church's role as the magisterium is central. Shouldn't the authority section describe the hierarchal structure, the role(s) of articulating and enforcing doctrine, the relation of church to moral theologians and individual clergy, to laity, etc.? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I applaud you for trying to handle such a huge topic.
I placed the issues of no women or homosexual priests under the section discussing priests. I just gave the facts, no discussion of controversy. I was considering a section on those types of issues under a section called controversial issues at the bottom. Some editors dont think Jesus founded the church so I was going to put their concerns in this section too. What do you think about that? NancyHeise (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very responsive. I'd advise against a separate controversies section. Much better to have issues integrated in the article. Just like you have Luther, if there are very significant criticisms of Jesus as founder, then I weave those into the appropriate historical section. I would think that the Church's ostracism of homosexuality would deserve mention in the modern narrative (unrelated to gay priests), but do you all have a way of gauging the notability of such issues? Thanks. HG | Talk 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the script comments from comment number one on this page so I have it all on one page. Thanks.NancyHeise (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy the semi automated peer review here for space issues (see instructions above). I am copying it back, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:10 UTC)

List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Following the last FLC, the list has unedergone some transformations, however I'm unsure whether some items should stay or be removed, mainly the squad numbers section, hopefully this can be resolved during this peer review. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Daemonic Kangaroo (talk · contribs)

Autoreview

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

More to come... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've dealt with your comments, it is the top 14 transfers because the last two transfers are both thre same hence the reason they are both 14, there are 15 in total. NapHit (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

Here we go then...

In general, I like the way you've used prose sections to lead in to the tables, makes it read a bit less like a page from the News of the World annual. And the changes you've made in response to other suggestions have made a definite improvement. The one thing that doesn't really work for me is having the Club records section as sort-of prose rather just a straightforward list. If it was prose, with odd bits of explanation or expansion on the bare facts, it'd probably work better, but as all you have is effectively a list with a few verbs inserted, it makes it quite difficult reading. Others might well think the opposite :-) Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:14 UTC)

Auckland Zoo

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I want to get it to GA or FA standard, any comments or edits would be appreciated.

Thanks,

ZoofanNZ (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello, I'll make a few comments which may help on the way to GA.

Hope these help. Feel free to get in touch with me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:18 UTC)

List of Washington Redskins players

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what else I should do to it to make it a Featured List. Let me know what else I can do to make it the best it can be!

Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

An enormous list (143K?!)! I can't check each entry (I don't think I have that much time left....!) but I'll comment on style and all that...

That's all I have for now, good luck with progressing the list to FL! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:19 UTC)

South Atlantic Medal

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently expanded it.[1] WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals suggests improving articles by submitting them for a peer review. Myself personally, I'd like to see if anyone can spot any faults with it and that users not familiar with the subject can understand it. Thanks, Ryan4314 (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi

That's about it for now, the article could do with further expansion. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(yes, by all means strike them out when you're done... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:20 UTC)

Empire of Atlantium

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it can achieve good, or even featured article status with some more improvement. I didn't want to nominate it yet for either status, I wanted to improve the chances of a promotion with this peer review. With a website complete with plenty of information and images; and with the Emperor being a Wikipedia editor (user:Gene Poole), I think this article could soon achieve either status.

WikiProject Micronations and its members would help with this (the Emperor is a member).

Thanks,

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Well, complete novice at micronations so thought I'd have a read and make some independent comments (with FA ultimately in mind)...

Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove the links but why the brackets? Unless there is any large amount of information about each government then the brackets should stay. I'll see if I can find any other information. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most are just links to news articles from Atlantium's website. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have for now. I feel it's a way of FA for the time being, I'm afraid, but dealing with some of my comments should iron out some of the most obvious issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:21 UTC)

I would like to point out...

That, in addition to believing it too long John Smith also feels that the page suffers from too great of a POV slant. Unfortunately, he has yet to make any specific suggestions or contributions besides asking that content be deleted. We have suggested that he begin a sandbox to show us the direction he envisions for the page, but as of yet we have seen no response.

Furthermore, i have a nice little script that strips citation, footnote, and reference formatting from articles. I ran it on the page content and discovered that, absent the massive footnoting and cited sources at the bottom of the page (and the accompanying formatting within the article), the page comes to only about ~64K (i actually measured 63K, but that was only a quick look).

64K is a common page length, and i must point out that this particular article suffers from a much higher level of challenge and scrutiny regarding its assertions. Consequently, the content length cannot be effectively estimated by merely glancing at the history or edit page and using the file length as a measure. This is apparently what John Smith has done, and i would suggest that if one truly wishes to reckon the content size then in articles such as this -- where there is, of necessity, just a huge, huge, huge number of footnotes, citations, and sourced referents -- that one must take into account these elements.

I would, therefore, suggest that for now the question of whether or not this page is too long is moot, and that this particular peer review request is nothing more than content dispute moved to this page. Since the editors of that page have yet to see any clear or focused suggestions or contributions made by John Smith, it is my opinion that this minor disagreement ,is more appropriate on the talk page.

Finally, i would like to observe that this particular objection seems as if it would be a relatively easy thing to abuse. Determinedly antagonistic editors would, without a doubt, attempt to fluff articles up with citations and sources (the work of which would fall to their opponents, thereby wasting their time) and then demand that content be trimmed upon its growth to some unspecified length. While that might seem an ineffective means of censoring content, it has been my experience that on wikipedia certain political issues are a magnet for all sorts of extremely determined extremists who seek to censor ideas not to their liking; when unable to utilize other means i have no doubt that such people would be willing to avail themselves of these methods, also. While it might not succeed in eliminating pre-existing content it would, nevertheless, be an extremely effective means of limiting further development of the article by enforcing an artificial cap on what may or may not be presented there. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather improper to suggest a request for a peer review is a continuation of a content dispute. A peer review can be both positive and negative in its conclusions, so it is useless unless one honestly wants an independent outside view. As to length, I sometimes see three citations per point. That is not necessary, especially if some are propaganda mouthpieces like Granma.
I honestly don't understand why certain editors feel this request is somehow "bad" for the page. Are editors so naive that they're going to be influenced by my brief observations and ignore what they see on the article? Clearly there are disputes, as you yourself have complained about the activities of other users. If the disputes have to be resolved via tough dispute resolution means you will need to be able to show it wasn't just your view against their's. A peer review is useful as it can both serve to act as a means of forming consensus and show that you are acting out of good faith.
Again, the repeated objections/complaints about this peer review request are bizzare in the extreme. John Smith's (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say the request was "bad" for the page. I simply indicated that the points used to justify the request are spurious. That is a big distinction.

You are entitled to your opinions about the value of certain sources, but unless your opinion accords with established Wikipedia precedent then it really doesn't matter. Granma may seem merely a propaganda machine to you, but then many people around the world feel the same way about the U.S. State Department, the CIA, or even the New York Times and Washington Post. Fortunately, Wikipedia policy steers a more neutral path between those extremes.

Also, it seems odd for you to suggest that it is in Wikipedia's interest to eliminate the sourcing and citations for included material. Essentially, what you are suggesting is that the editors of this page willfully eliminate evidence demonstrating that the article is accurately sourced; clearly, that would open up the possibility for later editors to come along and delete the material because it is not properly sourced. That seems quite contrary to the fundamental principles upon which this project is based.Stone put to sky (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sky, please do not misrepresent what I said. I did not suggest eliminate sourcing, I suggesting removing sources that repeat what others said. You do not need three sources for one point. I have worked on lots of articles where multiple sources have been skimmed down. From a style point I think more than two sources does not look pleasant. I also did not say "you must delete them" - I said that they were not necessary. There is a big difference. John Smith's (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I asked why a controversial source like Granma would be used when there are other more reliable sources too. And, yes, I would say that it it a POV source whereas the New York Times is not. Wikipedians are allowed to use their common-sense, and Cuba is a land without media freedom whereas the US has a very good amount of it. John Smith's (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:22 UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because of on-going disputes that have hampered the page progressing into an interesting, (reasonably) non-partisan piece of work. Some editors appear to be driven by strong political views that hamper their ability to edit in a way that suits Wikipedia's guiding principles.

Currently I cannot believe it will ever achieve FA status - maybe not even GA status. It is already very long, yet there appears to be no drive or interest in reducing it either by cropping unnecessary text or moving information into articles on the subject in question. Indeed some users appear to want to add even more material.

What the article needs is a comprehensive report from a non-involved editor with no strong interest/position on the matters it addresses. The main questions would be what existing material is good and should be kept, what existing material is good and should be moved elsewhere (if so, what), and what existing material is bad and should be deleted/replaced. Furthermore what areas, if any, could be expanded on the page.

Essentially, explain where the page "is" now, where it needs to go and how it is going to get there.

Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the article needs is a comprehensive report from a non-involved editor with no strong interest/position on the matters it addresses. I think most editors involved would be able to support this statement. However, there would likely be less concensus on the 'main questions' as John Smith has identified and phrased them.
A number of editors have expressed willingness to look at a complete re-structuring of the article, and if such a move seemed likely to support continued improvement of the article, concensus could likely be developed on that issue.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the harm in asking uninvolved editors to look at a complete restructure too? John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you are coming from with your question. I was in fact offering up the possibility of a complete restructuring in addition to your options of what existing material is good and should be kept, what existing material is good and should be moved elsewhere (if so, what), and what existing material is bad and should be deleted/replaced. Furthermore what areas, if any, could be expanded on the page.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can also agree that the article could benefit from "What the article needs is a comprehensive report from a non-involved editor with no strong interest/position on the matters it addresses." I disagree that it can never be "even a GA." A far as ascribing "a lack of drive or interest" on the part of established editors to reduce any currently unessential material I do not think John is in a position to say, because his experience with the page is very recent, and he has not yet evidenced any specific knowledge of the topic which is broad and complex. The article is a work in progress and there are always a number of issues to work on; I trust that peer reviewers will keep that in mind. I also hope that peer reviewers will be disposed to ask questions if they require more knowledge or clarification pertaining to the subject.BernardL (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard, I can read the talk page - I have not seen many entries where people have said "wow, we need to cut this down, guys". You yourself have worked on yet another section to add to the article, which will make it even longer.
Rather than take swipes at me by alleging this peer request is to get at one of your friends and saying that I don't know anything about the topic (which would be irrelevant anyway given even someone with no knowledge can see that a page over 100kb could be broken down), you could assume good faith and not try to belittle those outsiders that have a view. John Smith's (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that Bernard has done anything of the sort, and I raised the same point about your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith that you have made JohnSmiths. No one but yourself has raised the issue that the article is "too long." I suggest that given your history of conflict with me, to the point of getting a revert parole and going to arbcom--and the fact that part of that was your wikistalking--that you disenge from further conflict with me. Out of the 2,199,609 articles on WP, why did you choose the one that I primarily edit on, if not to further seek out conflict with me? Even if you are not, then that is clearly the appearance you create, and more reason reconsider your choices of articles to edit on (not that you have shown any previous interest or knowledge on this topic anyway). That being said, I welcome outside and non-involved editors input.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? I am the one who has been attacked and sniped at for making this peer review request. I think the treatment I have received at the hands of you and your buddy is a good reason why the article needs outside help because you are too suspicious and mean towards people who come along to express a view other than "keep up the good work". John Smith's (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation series

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review it is a former FA demoted because of lack of references. I want to solve this issue, but I would like to know weather there are any other issues (besides referencing) that could pose a problem. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding on the proposed merger would definitely help. The article would definitely benefit from a bit more content regarding critical reaction to the series as a whole, probably particularly to the original Trilogy. It would probably help if there were a bit more content relating to the development of the series, even if only in an abbreviated form. Other than that, any additional relevant content from the sources, as they're found, is about all I can imagine it might need. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:24 UTC)

List of people from Savannah, Georgia

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently created from the Savannah, Georgia article. The goal is to improve it to Featured List status.

Thanks,

Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Cash (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:25 UTC)

The Alien Costume

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get out of this review, ways to improve upon wording, phrasing and just and overall opinion on where this article is at the moment, and if some other stuff should added to it or removed from it.


Thanks,

Gman124 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 15 February 2008, 22:26 UTC)

List of Birmingham City F.C. statistics and records

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
As this seems to be the latest fashion in football lists, I've adopted the basic Aston Villa format as enhanced to FL standard at Ipswich Town. The objective is to get this one to featured list, so I'd be grateful for whatever improvements or corrections you can suggest to get it there. Many thanks for your time! cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

Nothing to comment on really.

Probably more issues than what I spotted, but not far off an WP:FLC anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Great stuff, few minor things..

That's it for me, a really good list, it'll breeze FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 16 February 2008, 11:27 UTC)

Dover Athletic F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another stab at a FA on a non-league football club, pretty much following the pattern of other similar FAs such as Stocksbridge Park Steels. Let me know what you think, anyway..........

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 16 February 2008, 21:44 UTC)

List of managers of the England national football team

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Well, I could barely believe that this article (or one like it) didn't already exist so I knocked this up. I'm hoping for it to make WP:FL in the future, based loosely on the List of Manchester City F.C. managers which placed as much importance on the history and prose as it did on the stark reality of the facts in the list. I'm sure, yet again, it's riddled with issues, two solid days of work on it means I'd like to float this out to the community for any comments or advice. As always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PeeJay

Comments from Struway2

Comments from Koncorde

Walter Winterbottom was the first manager appointed, in /year/, and served for a total of /x/ years as manager. His /x/ years in charge remain the longest period for any England manager so far (with his successor, Ramsey, behind on /x/ years). During his tenure he successfully lead the team to their first 4 World Cup finals.
And this would be a summary:
Walter Winterbottom served as manager for longer than any other."
Don't mean to nitpick language, but just making a point that parts need fleshing out or structured in such a way as to stay fresh.--Koncorde (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no worries, nitpicking is good... I'm still stuck in the midst of working out if I should reduce the flesh a bit to focus on a list or expand further to make an article. Or both. Or neither (and just stick to Ipswich articles!). I think there's loads of scope for similar national coach articles (at the very least Scotland would easily have enough for something similar) so I'd like to get this right. What's the way forward, article with summarising table for FAC or brief intro and expanded table for FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's an equal call for both. Looking at a few of the managers bio's they rarely focus on the England career (even in the case of Winterbottom) so there is clearly scope here to not only improve their biographies, but to also create a full "International" collection of pen-bio's, history and events. I would say this article should focus on provided the data and pen-bio's, facts and other managerial information you wont find on History of the England national football team.
Meanwhile a lot of the info, references and detail you have picked up on clearly should be incorporated into History of the England national football team which is pretty much empty of references in a rather atrocious way.--Koncorde (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so focussing on this article, at least initially, would you suggest I concentrate on making this more article-ish? I get the overall feeling that it seems the best way forward (I didn't imagine how much information there was really, poor foresight) and I'm prepared to do more work to expand it. As for the existing England pages, I've not really looked into them much, I know the England national football team page stinks. That's one of the reason I decided to create a half-decent (in my opinion) fork for the managers. If someone wants to back-incorporate info here that's fine, I'm currently concentrating on this article! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you should concentrate this into more of a database to which the articles for the individual managers and National team etc would plug into. Perhaps condense down the history and get it watertight for each one (the Man Utd managers one is pretty tight on the history with little wasted repeating of information and limited links). The vast amount of info really should go into the England History and the Managers own bio's and it'd be good to get some of your links and cites referenced over in the other articles.
I'm going to 'adopt' the England history article and start working it into something more suitable.--Koncorde (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

I think we're in article territory here rather than list - there's enough out there about "the Impossible Job" itself to merit it. To this end, I think the article would benefit from a section about the role itself as opposed to the incumbents and their actions. In particular, the intense media scrutiny associated with position is worth covering, and things like the reasons for the appointment of a full-time manager. It might be worth seeing if your local library has a copy of Niall Edworthy's The Second Most Important Job in the Country, which I hear is the best of the books about the England job. Actually, having just looked it up on a well known site named after a water feature I might buy that one myself, it'd be useful for when I finally get around to having a stab at getting Joe Mercer to FA, and second-hand copies are going for a penny. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the way my mind is heading with this. I think the role, its history and the guys involved are worthy of a summarising article, along the lines of England national football managers. I'll have a look for that book as well! I'd like to get this conceptually right as I think it could be expanded across to other national manager articles. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 17:29 UTC)

Triton (moon)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has just achieved GA and I was wondering what it would require to reach FA.

Thanks,

Serendipodous 11:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by RJH

Since the first photos came out, I'd always thought that was one weird-looking moon. Apart from needing a few minor edits and some polishing up of the text though, the article seems in pretty good shape. Here's a few comments:

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph lengths reworked. Hope that helped.
The ambiguous sentence refers to the mass of the core; unfortunately, it is not clear whether the sentence refers to the absolute mass or to the ratio between the mass of the core and the mass of the moon, and since I can't check the source, I'll have to remove it.
I've given my best shot at interpreting the source of the circular orbit claim, but it's a bit above my head.
RE: alpha/beta, the source's abstract doesn't mention alpha or beta, just cubic and hexagonal, so I think alpha/beta can be removed.
Bad refs now fixed I think. Serendipodous 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Sunday 17 February 2008, 17:50 UTC)

ANAK Society

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently promoted to GA status, an achievement I'm proud of considering it was previously a deleted AfD. I'm hoping to get it to FA status pending the results of this peer review. I'm especially looking for feedback regarding the references, which may need special attention because the article deals with a secret society. I'm also not sure about the image placement or the sequence of the different sections.

Note: I'm not affiliated with the ANAK Society in any way.

Thanks, MaxVeers (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking that it looked distinctly FA-quality. However, I'm sure somebody has some ideas for it before we throw it to the sharks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 05:50 UTC)

James Milner

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hoping to give this the final push to FA status. Has already failed once mainly due to the poor prose so that is the main thing I want to address in this PR. Buc (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/James Milner/archive4.


(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:05 UTC)

Annette Olson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Please ensure this article complies with Wikipedia standards, meets overall quality, and give feedback on author's skill.

Thanks, Robert Fredrick (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kakofonous There are a few problems that I notice:

If you have any questions, just ask them here or on my talk page. Kakofonous (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:08 UTC)

Rhabdomyolysis

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This condition, which occurs in crush syndrome but also in many other medical situations and as a side-effect to treatment, was recently listed at the medical collaboration of the week. Several high-quality sources were identified, and WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) and myself have expanded and sourced most of the content; this includes the diagnosis, causes, mechanism and treatment of the condition as well as its relevance in disasters and its historical context. I think it is now fairly complete, but would prefer some people's views before I submit it for WP:GA. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WhatamIdoing JFW, you know I think you've done an amazing job with this article. The main sources are excellent, the information is appropriately detailed while sticking to Wikipedia's summary style, and nothing obvious is missing. It's clearly a Good Article in its present state. If you're aiming for FAC, then here are a couple of minor nits you can pick:

Overall, I think it's in great shape, and you ought to submit it for a formal review already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:15 UTC)

Virginia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Virginia achieved Good Article status last year, but didn't receive a thorough line by line review. A first request for Peer Review also went without any human review. This article is quite close to FA, but where else does it need work? Where are more references needed? Which topic are too lengthy and which too short? How does it read? I think the article on a whole can be shortened, but which paragraphs can be broken off without damaging the readability? Even if someone could review a single section or subsection that would be an exemplar for the rest of the article. Thanks for your help, Patrick Ѻ 17:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:21 UTC)

List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a complete list of all thirteen municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. We (Dincher and Ruhrfisch) have worked on this list, following the model of the Featured List List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, including the picture gallery and clickable map. Each county is different, so we would like another set of eyes (or two) to look this over and help us get it ready for WP:FLC, as well as help make it clearer. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks good; mostly what I see are merger types of issues with Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. For example, the 'history' section should be in an article on the county, not in a listing of municipalities in said county (the article on the county could benefit by getting it's history section back, as it has started to look a little spotty),...

Try to avoid phrases like "as the crow flies" -- all that's required here is to illustrate the distance in miles and/or km between the county and Philly and Pittsburgh. There's no need to be excessively flowery here.

I'd recommend putting the map of the county's location in PA on top of the local map of sullivan county; and put them directly over the other, with no paragraph text allowed to flow between them; make sure they're the same width.

I'd move the collection of thumbnail images to immediately below the list table, not above it. It might help to put it into it's own section entitled 'gallery'?

The clickable map image is a bit large; it could probably be reduced to 1/2 or 2/3 its present size. It might be better to put it before the list table as well.

The panoramic image isn't doing much for me where it is; it might be better to put it in the Sullivan County, Pennsylvania article instead.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping the panoramic picture because it shows what most of Sullivan County looks like. It is really pretty much a wilderness. This pic shows the rolling hills off into the distance pretty clearly. Dincher (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is in Loyalsock State Forest but not the county article. I like how it shows the dissected plateau - the heights of the "mountains" are all the same, as they are really the tops of a plain that has been eroded with such deep vallys as to look like mountains. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I want to thank APR, Epbr123 and Dr. Cash for their helpful comments Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:22 UTC)

Francis Drake

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like comments on the citations and general writing of the article.


Thanks, Deflagro C/T 23:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:30 UTC)

Richard Mentor Johnson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was recently promoted to GA, and the GA reviewer suggested a thorough copyedit before sending it to FAC. Since I am the primary author of the article, I probably am not the ideal person to perform that copyedit. I would appreciate and comments/edits that make the article more likely to pass an FA review. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:32 UTC)

Solomon P. Sharp

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have done a significant overhaul of this article, which was largely WP:COPYVIO and badly WP:POV. I believe it is well-sourced and well-written, but my instincts tell me it will not pass a GA review as it is now. I think I've been working on it too long to see its flaws. Please provide any feedback on issues you think would need to be addressed for the article to pass a GA review. I'd also like to solicit opinions on whether or not the article could ever be considered for FA. Is it too short? Are there too few reliable sources on the subject? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32

Actually, I have little to add on this. The article seems quite appropriate in comprehensiveness and length. The references look great; there aren't likely to be copious sources on 19th century attornies general of U.S. states. I would look into going to the League of Copy Editors as a next step; copyediting is NOT my strength, but there are many people there who are very good at it. Well done on this one. It is clearly GA quality already, and looks quite close to FA quality as well. Good job and good luck, and I am sorry I can't add more since the article is so great as it is! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your generous review! I wasn't aware of the "League of Copyeditors." Given some of the vague "this article needs a copyedit" feedback I'm prone to get at FAC this is definitely good info to have. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:33 UTC)

Jena Six

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is extremely important and recently went through a formatting sweep by yours truly. I wonder what serious issues can be identified in the article, if any, and if important content appears to be missing.

Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:39 UTC)

Millennium Challenge Account

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article needs some structural help, as there are no articles that seem like this one. Also, what needs to be included, or removed? I am trying to get this to Good Article status, and then Featured, so any help will be awesome :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:57 UTC)

America's Next Top Model

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it meets with the FA criteria, and has good references.

Thanks, Glitter1959 (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Glitter1959[reply]

All of the references in the article need to be formatted properly, WP:CITE should give you some advice on how to do that. -Malkinann (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thouhgts by user:Chrisisinchrist

Overall, I think this is an OK artile, but it still needs lots of work to become a good article and featured article. I will point out a few things:

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 20:59 UTC)

Geocaching

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is great and wondered if anyone agrees with me. It gives all the relevant facts, and anybody who is not familiar with the subject can get all the information they need from the article. I think it could also be considered for FA.


Thanks,

Spiby (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:GeeJo

Comments from WhatamIdoing: As a person who's never been involved in geocaching, my overall impression is that this article has a friendly, accessible feel with enough information about the subject to make me feel like I understand it. The first part of the article is great; the later parts occasionally seem to deteriorate into a list of fairly trivial decisions by individual organizations.

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 21:01 UTC)

Sheffield Rules

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Nominating to get an idea of how far the article is from FA. Thanks, josh (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello josh, here are my comments on a good and interesting" article.

Hope this has been of use! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've fixed most of the problems you've identified with the following exceptions -
  • "football" in the first sentence should be qualified by association. - Although their histories intertwine the Sheffield code always remained distinct from the association rules.
  • "...that lasted several days ..." - this needs expanding! Presumably they stopped at night?! - The account doesn't give much detail including what happened at night.
  • "In 1861 Rouges were introduced..." - explain this. - Its explained in that paragraph. Does it need to be clearer?
  • The convert template uses numerals so I can't used worded numbers with it.
Thanks. josh (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 21:03 UTC)

Lillian Board

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on it and would like it to get a higher rating.


Thanks, MG291 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 21:05 UTC)

Dirk Nowitzki

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to boost this article to hopes of GA.


Thanks,

Basketball110 04:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, forget the GA. Basketballone10 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 21:06 UTC)

Jane Zhang

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article failed the featured article criteria due to the under-constructed prose. However, I have requested copyediting to fix this problem and I was wondering if there is anything that needs to be addressed before I re-nominate this article.

Thanks, σмgнgσмg 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 21:09 UTC)

Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am gearing this up for FA. A whole and thorough review would be helpful.

Truly, --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any review other that this? --Efe (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 19 February 2008, 21:11 UTC)

Scarred for Life

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:31 UTC)

Power of Love (Harry and the Potters album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:32 UTC)

The Enchanted Ceiling

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:33 UTC)

Seton Hall University

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because wikiproject Seton Hall University needs copyediting and other help in order to make Seton Hall University a Featured article


Thanks, Rankun (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:35 UTC)

Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was promoted to GA in November and I think it could potentially be an FA, however I am not really sure what else needs to be done to improve it. Would appreciate any suggestions/criticisms.


Thanks, Loopla (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Years Review

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:46 UTC)

Nadine Gordimer

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a "B" on the quality assessment scale, and I'd like to get detailed feedback to help bring it up the ladder, eventually to an "FA".

Thanks, Lquilter (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:55 UTC)

Harry and the Potters (album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 01:59 UTC)

Voldemort Can't Stop the Rock!

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 02:03 UTC)

List of 30 Rock awards and nominations

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article for the past few days and I would like to see if there is any further improvements I could make.

I have tried to style the article similarly to the featured list, List of awards won by The Simpsons.

I would appreciate feedback on the opening paragraph and what could be added to it to improve it.

Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masem

Otherwise looks like a good reasonable approach set by the other article. --MASEM 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 21 February 2008, 03:35 UTC)

Virtua Fighter (anime)

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

I've listed this article for peer review. Needs an assessment since it was recently created.


Thanks, Ominae (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly checked the first half of the article. Grammar is a pet peeve of mine, and something I am often bad at myself, so I looked at that.
  • I made some edits to Characters; see if they still agree with the general ideas. I might've missed other problems there.
  • I also wonder if there's a different way to say "[un]like his[or her] video game counterpart" in that section. I tried removing "video" in second and later occurences so that it would look a bit less repetitive, but I doubt that's the best solution.
  • I de-capitalized words like "Flying squirrel" and "Racing queen". If they are proper nouns or something, they are easily changed back.
  • I italicized some titles.
  • I wonder if Plot can be expanded a bit.
Peer review is not something I do often (my first, actually), so I hope my changes help you.
—an odd name 03:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 01:18 UTC)

Bernard Fanning

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

It's been a GA for a while, and I'd like to go for FA. All comments welcome, especially those relating to content needed. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see this as a featured article, but I don't think it's anywhere near where it needs to be. It's really deficient in the quantity of content. I'm certain there are many cavities of information able to be sourced which are not. I'd love to guide and help participate more, but don't have the time atm, but the whole article needs to practically double in length, and for this to happen, I believe basically every section needs around twice as much information as they presently have. There should be a little bit more information about Ned Kelly, too, and maybe info in the discography section about Fanning's extracurricular contributions (which I'm sure there're more that are left unmentioned here). Good luck, though. --rm 'w avu 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's the thing; I really don't know what can/should be added in terms of content. I mean, we could talk more about his solo work, but it wouldn't really be biographical, and would belong in the album article. Meanwhile, Powderfinger mostly do things as a group, not attributing stuff to any one person.
Do you know of any extracurricular stuff that can be added? I expect you have more idea than I do :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Peripitus

Great to see the WP:FINGER obsessives still driving on ! The article is ok but mostly is lacking comprehensiveness.

- Peripitus (Talk) 13:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I'll try and find more content in the near future. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems I have a bit of time. I'm working on fattening up the article with more info. Do you happen to know any refs to that stuff you mentioned about spanish and whatever? ta. --rm 'w avu 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just found in websearching. The Youncare charity bit comes from numerous sources - latest is "The Sunday Mail - News Limited Australia - May 14, 2006", Yoga from The Age with a note from the same source that Mrs Prince Frederik of Denmark is a fan, Spanish from News Limited, perfoming with his wife from The Courier Mail, an expansion on his uni course and how he met Ian in The Age. I think I made the hampster bit up - Peripitus (Talk) 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

I've just done a bit of copyediting mostly for clarity (things like redundancies, misplacement of commas and other punctuations and disambiguation/re-ambiguation. The article looks good as it sits as far as grammar, but it should be combed again by someone else not connected to the subject matter. All said, I believe I made about 7 contribs in the edit history (I broke it out by section so that it would be easier to see the changes). If any of the changes are contentious, let me know on my talkpage so I can sort out my reasoning! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore

Just the University alone. --Efe (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to object DM. --Efe (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps. I've replied to stuff that hasn't been done, so the rest is. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 02:05 UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think that there is much more work that needs to be done. I have passed this article through Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and I have received some helpful information there. Now I hope to receive more in-depth feedback in order to improve the article to the best of my ability. Are there any gaps that I have to fill? Is the article too short? Am I lacking in details?

Thanks,

Dem393 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 14:32 UTC)

Concussion

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm mainly looking for people familiar with the subject to check facts, because I'm not an expert, and it's possible that I've introduced some distortions or inaccuracies (though I've compulsively referenced!). Particularly I'd be interested to know if folks think I've done the structural damage debate justice. I'd like to know what it would take to get this to GA and beyond, so of course any other suggestions would be great too. Thanks much, delldot talk 14:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Concussion/archive1.


(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 14:34 UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article, I feel, could be improved much so as to get GA status, but I would like to know through peer review how I shoudl go about it.


Thanks, Liscobeck (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 14:50 UTC)

King Crimson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked on this article for a long time. It's currently at GA, but I'd ideally like to see it reach FA eventually. Some have said that it needs a copyedit, but I don't see that myself. Personally, I think the second paragraph in the Improvisation section is one of the weakest points of the article, and may possibly contain WP:OR - if so that can be removed by any editor who agrees with me. Having said that, it is definitely a decent article, and although I don't have access to book sources, I do think that it has FA potential, and would like your help in making that possible. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks, h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 14:53 UTC)

Reservoir Dogs

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want an overall review of this article for prose, I know it requires alot more sources. I also want a second opinion on what we should do with all the trivia, it's been edited down alot but there is still unsourced OR, any suggestions are appreciated.


Thanks, The Dominator (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 14:54 UTC)

Superdelegate

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

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

I'm concerned that this page has changed too much in the last few months and is starting to lose it's NPOV and to "lean" more and more toward the Obama Campaign's "outlook" on Super Delegates. For example, the entire discussion of how Super Delegates were created after the McGovern loss in 1972 has, apparently, been removed. And, the pending request to move this article to "Unpledged Delegates" seems a bit strange in light of the current debate going on about Super Delegates.


Thanks, DemocratNanny (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JamesMLane

The article summarizes the history of the rule -- correctly stating, with citation to a reliable source, that the superdelegate rule was adopted after the 1980 election, not after the 1972 election. The section on "Criticism" presents the criticism poorly and presents the other side not at all, so both aspects should be improved. One problem is that it's easier to find quotable spokespersons attacking the rule. People who side with the status quo, on any issue, tend to be less vocal. If you have information that will counter what you perceive as a "lean", by all means add it.

I will definitely try to learn enough about Wikipedia's intricacies to add information. And, I stand corrected. The Democratic Party did add Super Delegates in 1980 but one of the biggest reasons for doing so was as a "safety valve" to prevent McGovern type disasters. My concern with editing this and other articles related to the 2008 election (and specifically to the Obama - Clinton battle) is that, while I realize Wikipedia is an open community, I don't have the time or resources to sit around and have "edit wars" with Obama supporters who seem to be the ones altering these articles for political gain. I assume that this has been the case because the Obama supporters tend to be younger and more tech savvy than are the Clinton folks. But, all the same, I would hate to see Wikipedia used to push an agenda. DemocratNanny (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:05 UTC)

Mark Messier Leadership Award

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because It is part of the featured topic National Hockey League awards, but not a good article or featured article and the featured topic criteria has been changed to say that all such articles should have been peer reviewed.

Thanks, Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:07 UTC)

Cannibal Holocaust

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done the first major edits to the article since its feature article listing, mainly to the production section. I'd like a peer review to make sure I didn't screw anything up too badly. Helltopay27 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:13 UTC)

Harry and the Potters discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has failed to achieve featured list status twice, it also went through peer review before, yet only an automated review was given. I would like to know how I can improve the article, so that it follows the criteria. Length has been addressed and now am wondering how it can become "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" - I believe it requires third-party sources, however I am unable of finding any. I am looking for any suggestions about improving the article, meeting the criteria or if you would be so kind, directly editing the article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:15 UTC)

Homeopathy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a thoroughly sourced good article, and with editing, stylistic improvements, and perhaps removal of some excessively long sections to daughter articles, it could become a featured article.

Note: the article was recently subject to intense edit warring, but this seems to be under control. I would like suggestions on how to improve the article so that former adversaries can work together towards a common goal.

Thanks, Jehochman Talk 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and the first section are fine, Oh well, what a difference less than a sennight makes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be improved "...one should administer a minute dose of a substance that in crude dose...", &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 06:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than using nth century, a little more date specificity might be nice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 06:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US homeopathy still exists, yes? " This trend became especially exemplified by James Tyler Kent and dominated US homeopathy from the 1850s until its demise in the 1940s." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be better phrased. It seems to be a ref to broad-spectrum treatments, is it? On the other hand, "clinical" homeopathy uses a range of approaches including combinations of remedies to "cover" the various symptoms of an illness, similar to conventional drug treatments &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 06:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crappy English: ...where the patient's subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the patient expecting that it will work
This section ===Contemporary prevalence=== is poorest some I English read ever have. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy the semi automated review here - this is stated in the directions above, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Radames

The current article is a polemic against Homeopathy: it s not neutral.

1.” Claims for its efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies” This is not a neutral statement. Most of the studies I read in the article don’t support the sentence. They concluded that the results are positive but not convicning. 2. The only study which” debunked “ homeopathy has caused a major controversy (major press .articles, debates - I saw one at the museum of the natural history ) and important homeopaths have critisized it in reliable sources  : where is this critisism ? 3.Homeopathy according to the editors of the article is not regarded ………controversial anymore; despite all the reliable sources which state the opposite. 4.The article is unstable since December . : Totally unbalanced and biased.--Radames1 (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth doesn't have to respect your notion of "balance". Also, see WP:UNDUE, and maybe read a bit about science 195.141.76.131 (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Please do not add level 1-3 section headings to peer reviews. If this happens too often, we may have to reconsider transcluding peer reviews onto the main peer review page. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When everyone is done mucking about ;) the grammar of the article will need to be corrected -- assuming it isn't in the interim. However, the present course doesn't seem to offer much hope. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:29 UTC)

Hydro-Québec's electricity transmission system

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what parts of the article need expansion and/or improvement. I would also like to see if this article qualifies for Featured-article status.


Thanks, Cheers. Trance addict 21:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd prefer a human review, but thanks anyway. Cheers. Trance addict

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:44 UTC)

EasyJet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there's been a lot of work done on it recently - I know it's not perfect and I have my own idea of what needs to be done, but would appreciate some objective comments.

Thanks, Wexcan  Talk  03:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 15:56 UTC)

Concurrent use registration

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's pretty good, and would like to know if there's anything I need to do to move it further up the quality ladder.

Thanks, bd2412 T 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 16:02 UTC)

Old Trafford

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to eventually submit it as a featured article candidate, as part of my drive to get Manchester United F.C. and its related articles to Featured Topic status. I believe some statements may require referencing, but I am unsure exactly which ones these are. I have based the article's structure on that used in Priestfield Stadium and Portman Road, both of which are now Featured Articles. I believe the content of Old Trafford is much more comprehensive than either of those two, and so it shouldn't take too much effort to get it to Featured status.

Thanks, – PeeJay 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

My thoughts:

Hope these help. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now dealt with each of the concerns expressed here. Any other comments, please share them. – PeeJay 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've covered everything there. Any more comments, you know the drill. – PeeJay 00:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Qwghlm

That's it for now. The article is fairly good, though the prose doesn't quite flow as well as I'd like in some cases, but the above are the most urgent cases for fixing. Qwghlm (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I've dealt with those satisfactorily. I'm sure there's still plenty of work to be done though. That'll teach me to try and write an article in chunks, rather than in one fell swoop. – PeeJay 00:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just to elaborate on a couple of things - I don't think the fact the record attendance is for a Cup semi-final is ironic, as Cup semi-finals are a regular occurrence and prestigious events in themselves. If you can't find figures for the stadium's renovations for the infobox, fair enough, but please make clear in the infobox that the costs & architect were for the original 1910 stadium. Oh and finally, as an Arsenal fan I can assure you I have never referred to the stadium as "The Theatre of Dreams" :) Qwghlm (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all references to irony from the article. Instead, I have mentioned that it is unusual for the stadium's record attendance not to involve its home club. I'm not quite sure how to make it clear that the cost and architect are only for the original stadium, so I've just put the year in parentheses after each. Hope that's OK. Just so you know, I never referred to Highbury as "the home of football" either. May have called it "The Library" once or twice though. ;) – PeeJay 14:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 16:05 UTC)

The Sims 2

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has progressed considerably since its last peer review in March of last year. Any constructive suggestions or comments would be helpful. I’d like to get it to a GA status. Thanks, Delia19 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 16:06 UTC)

Preludes (Chopin)

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

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

  1. It requires cleanup, as it has been tagged so.
  2. It has been described by an IP user as "an absolute disgrace, consisting of little beyond wildly subjective, often meaningless and ill-informed opinions" on the discussion page here.
  3. It needs a good re-shaping in tone and literary structure, especially in the "Pop culture" section - in short, a little more Wiki.

Thanks for your help, ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

  • a lead that summarizes it (this should probably be written after the article is restructured and redrafted) - see WP:LEAD
  • an overview section describing the pieces
  • a small summary of each piece (no need to expand greatly as each piece has its own page)
  • musical clips illustrating the pieces
  • a section detailing the reception of the pieces
  • a section detailing the important recordings and performances of the pieces (part of "Reception", perhaps?)

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 16:11 UTC)

Shady Records

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of effort has been made to make this article as informative and encyclopaedic as possible. I would like for this article to some day receive FA status if possible, so anything that can be done to improve it to it's current rating, including small things to the addition of more information that could be added (sections, perhaps). To my knowledge, no record label has actually received a GA/A/FA status, and with the hard work I feel that's been put in, it would be nice to see that I have been able to contribute something like this to Wikipedia at a high standard.


Thanks, Harish - 16:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon (talk · contribs)

Here are my thoughts on what looks like a diamond in the rough.

There ya go, I hope that's all constructive. Best of luck with it. Seegoon (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Seegoon! -- Harish - 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 23 February 2008, 16:13 UTC)

The Jeremy Kyle Show

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

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

I had nominated this article for GA, but it failed it. I'd like thoughts as to how it could possibly reach GA or even FA (The Jeremy Kyle Show as a featured article would be great, even if unlikely - a chance for Wikipedia to shine perhaps?)

Thanks, h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 00:14 UTC)

Senecio vulgaris

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seemed to be the next step towards completing an article for English wikipedia.


Thanks, carol 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 00:15 UTC)

St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to GA status. I've put a lot of research in to the article and would like to finish the project.

Thanks, Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 00:52 UTC)

Sea otter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC soon. It's quite thoroughly sourced but I know there are some statements that still need references, which I think I can do. In the meantime, I'd like to get feedback on comprehensiveness, accuracy, and neutrality of content. Copyediting and/or feedback on clarity and presentation would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 04:31 UTC)

Ganymede (moon)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it has been significantly expanded since the New Year. Any comments about the article's content are appreciated.

Thanks,

Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJH review

Overall a pretty good article. I really couldn't find much to fault, so I only have a few suggestions:

Nice work. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the last bullet, I added "The jovian subnebula may have been relatively "gas-starved" when the Galilean satellites formed; this would have allowed for the lengthy accretion times required for Callisto." The paper is here. Ruslik, I couldn't find the point where it confirms 10,000 years for Ganymede. Marskell (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a diagram on Io for the second point. Marskell (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been expanded to a good size and Velvetron is taking care of some minor things like duplicate blue links. Next, the info box needs refs. Marskell (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with "moment of inertia" and "magnetic moment," "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" also needs to be explained for the reader. After that, we're pretty much good to go with this one. Marskell (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small note: I know I said on Callisto that the adjectival form seems better upper case, but really adjectives are adjectives so I just changed to lower case. I've used ganymedian every time. Marskell (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence contaning "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" and added an explanation for "dimenesionless moment of inertia". However "magnetic moment" requires a lengthy explanation. I think it is better to simply use the wikilink. Ruslik (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 05:09 UTC)

List of 30 Rock episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on some extensive edits that I have been doing.

I would like feedback on what needs to be worked on and also any problems with layout.


Thanks, Jamie jca (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 11:14 UTC)

Princess Helena of the United Kingdom

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get it up to FA status, so any comments against the FA criteria will be useful. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

Hey, I have responded to your request on my talk page. My points below are ordered in the same way as what they refer to is in the article.

Specifics

General points

That's all I can find at the moment, it is an excellent article, you cover everything I can think of and write well, lots of images. Don't feel that it's a problematic article just because I haven't mentioned what's good about it. Everything above is minor. Hope this helps, SGGH speak! 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already corrected the few minor things that I found issue with. You shouldn't have any major problems at FAC (assuming no major part of her life was omitted). Great article. --mav (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 25 February 2008, 21:18 UTC)

Skokiaan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done extensive work on it and would like to see whether it could qualify for a Featured Article.

I would appreciate detailed comments on aspects of the text that need to be adjusted, expanded, or integrated.

Thanks, DocDee (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 01:43 UTC)

Mirth & Girth

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

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

…it's time for some other eyes to be laid on this article. Specifically, I had trouble writing the Appellate court section - it's hard to summarize a judge's opinion. In addition, I would like other people's opinions on the article's "content completeness", especially the Aftermath (Consequences?) section.

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 01:44 UTC)

List of New York hurricanes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article, rewriting it completly, and I believe it meets FL criteria, but I would like to get other people's opinions and consturctive critisism.


Thanks, Juliancolton (Talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 01:46 UTC)

Fanpop

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new page, and my first page and I'd like some kind of approval.


Thanks, --J-- (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 01:48 UTC)

Fanny Imlay

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is about Mary Wollstonecraft's less well-known daughter, Fanny Imlay. I am planning on taking it to FAC, so comments towards that end would be much appreciated. I am most curious to hear whether the article is decipherable. Imlay lived in the midst of a complicated family drama which is hard to explain succinctly. She also committed suicide - there are many theories that explain this. I most want to know whether the reader can follow the labyrinthine story of her life as it is told in this article. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fanny Imlay/archive1.


(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 02:09 UTC)

List of Meerkat Manor meerkats

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this list may be an excellent candidate for Featured List status, but would like to get some outside feedback on it to make sure it is as good as it can be before submitting. I know one issue is probably the lack of images, which is being worked on, but are there any other issues that need to be addressed? Are the meerkat descriptions well balanced between reality and the series? Any places that do not appear to be well sourced? Anything missing from the introduction? etc.

Thanks in advance,

AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Meerkat Manor meerkats/archive1.


(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 02:11 UTC)

Red Dwarf

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been through a lot of editing in the past few months. It has been cleaned up, certain sections removed or merged, and references have been inserted against the relevant statements. it would be a great help if other editors outside the subject matter could give their opinion on the article. Thanks, Nreive (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Dwarf/archive1.


(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 02:17 UTC)

Soprano Home Movies

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, I've listed this article about one of my favorite The Sopranos epsiodes for a peer review. I would like some feedback and comments on the overall quality of the article. I've modeled it after the Pilot (House) and Through the Looking Glass (Lost) articles (both featured). Although it's not as long as the latter, I think it covers all important aspects and follows Wikipedia:Television episodes closely. The article looked like this before I started working on it. The plot summary is a little longer than what's recommended but I really can't shorten it anymore without losing coherency, and as stated, "do not directly limit summaries if doing so makes them incoherent - the majority of good and featured episode articles overrun this limit slightly." I reckon there's some copy-editing to be made; as English is not my first language, I'm probably not too good at detecting weird and/or silly wordings. I know that the ratings part is just one long sentence but I really think it looks OK like that.

Much appreciated! –FunkyVoltron talk 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 15:10 UTC)

Discovery Expedition

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone considerable development in the last few weeks to bring it towards FA standard. I have therefore withdrawn its GA nomination as I feel a peer review is more appropriate.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some brief MoS things:

I've done this - will expand the SPRI label when I can access the website, temporarily unavailable.
The Winter Quarters Bay link is of interest and I've added a short explanation. The other two are very tangental and I've dropped them
I've added a few conversions, and a couple of nbsp, but I couldn't find an unlinked month-day combination
On the first, I've dropped the colon to achieve a smoother reading: Their goal was "to get as far south..." I'm not sure what your query is with the second quote, it seems OK to me and I can't spot any MOS objection
When is a sentence full? Let's say when it contains a verb. I've dealt with the captions on that basis
Corrected
I've added a missing comma, and more importantly I've corrected the details concerning Gregory - Prof at Melbourne University, but what exactly was I being asked to check?
Changed
I think the convention is that when year ranges are in the same century one uses the two-digit form, like 1839-43, & I have now adopted this throughout.

I didn't have time to read the article, but these are a few small items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding time for this and let me know if I've met your requirementsBrianboulton (talk)
They actually deal with quite different points, 32 with Wilson's evasiveness over scurvy and 33 with Shackleton disputing Scott's version of his being carried on the sledge, so I think they should remain separate
I meant combined in the same way ref 20 is, using the "ref name" function. The two different points can still each have a citation, but it will help keep the references list short. Epbr123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'll check for others Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm still not able to see how 32 and 33 can be combined. 32 cites Crane, p. 226-27 and adds a footnote. 33 is simply a footnote, that has nothing to do with the Crane page citation. I have combined 34 and what was 35 - did you mean your note to refer to these? I haven't found any other combinations Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant the Crane, p. 233 cites. The ref numbering changed since I made the comment [4]. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected
Have I not used ellipses correctly? They seem OK to me MOS-wise
There should be spaces around the ellipses, unless the ellipses were part of the original text being quoted. Epbr123 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One ellipsis is part of the quoted text, the others aren't. I have dealt with these Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed 8 to eight. Thanks for taking the time. Plese let me know if you aren't satisfied Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 February 2008, 16:23 UTC)

Day of Silence

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it contradicts itself and there are grammar mistakes.


Thanks, Thepopularloser (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 01:47 UTC)

The Fairylogue and Radio-Plays

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I began the article from scratch. I know I still need to cite my sources, most importantly the NYT article. I have a photo copy of it, but not handy, so I'm trying to find the citation that led me to it. All the credits are derived from the program in an online auction gallery.

Thanks, Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 01:48 UTC)

Nairobi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to be a fairly well written article, well on the way to becoming a GA or FA. I want to see what can be done to further the article's growth.


Thanks, Editorofthewiki (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 01:49 UTC)

Rossall School

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant editing and restructing since the last peer review. I would also suggest increasing its importance to those of the other English public schools - though it should clearly be lower than Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Winchester.


Thanks, (LennyLeonardson (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 01:50 UTC)

Jos LeDuc

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for a Good Article review. I would particularly appreciate comments on the structure of the article (section breaks) and how well the topic is taken out of universe. Any comments about the writing and coverage of the article are appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 01:51 UTC)

Damageplan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I hope to get this article to FA standards. Short but sweet eh.


Thanks, M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

It's not bad, expecially considering the fact the band has only released one album, but still lacks something. J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I will continue to read interviews to find info to bring it to FA. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 February 2008, 02:20 UTC)

Flying the Flag (for You)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it to FA before Eurovision in three months time. When it was listed as a GA, the reviewer said not much work would be needed to get it to FA, so I'm wondering what could be done.

Thanks, Will (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 03:47 UTC)

List of largest buildings in the world

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this list to featured list status but I am stuck as to how to improve it further.


Thanks, CStubbies 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have more entries in the list of largest buildings by volume? 3 is not a lot. JMiall₰ 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The special categories seems rather arbitrary, can the largest of any type of building go in here? If so some other types of building you could have the largest of: house, shop, castle, greenhouse, nightclub, restaurant, stadium, prison, school, cinema, every type of religous building. There could also be the largest buildings made of different materials such as wood, stone, brick etc. Also there's no history of largest buildings. A table showing what the world's largest building was throughout history would be interesting. JMiall₰ 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:03 UTC)

Diversity Day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working with it for a while, and am hoping to put it forward through to GAs. I'm hoping to get any constructive feedback I can from the review to help this article get to the best possible shape it can be.


Thanks, Mastrchf91 (t/c) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MaxVeers

Nice job. I'm a big fan of the show and I enjoyed reading this article.

Overall, I think the article looks pretty good. Here are my specific comments:

Hope this helps. By the way, if you'd be willing to peer review my article in return, I'd be grateful. MaxVeers (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:05 UTC)

Train horn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it needs overall improvement in preparation of nomination for a featured article.


Thanks, MakeChooChooGoNow (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Peripitus

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:12 UTC)

Belair Mansion

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its historic significance as both the Colonial Governor's mansion as well as the cradle of American Thoroughbred Racing, home of the Belair Stud. I've done extensive research and editing and would like to take the article to GA status. Thanks, Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comment 1 I find my way here in response to a request to Assess the Belair Mansion article that was posted in Assessment subpage of the wp:nrhp WikiProject. The one comment that I can make now is that, although the article appears very good and has multiple sources, one source that it is lacking is the official NRHP "Inventory/Nomination" or "Registration" documents (text, photos, and sometimes also correspondence) for the site. These are often 20-30 page write-ups by a historian and further editors, and often include invaluable information describing a property, its historical significance, and specifics on boundaries of what is covered in the NRHP registration, including pieces that cannot be found elsewhere. I want to highly recommend your obtaining these documents, which are free, by request to the National Register Reference Team at nr_register at nps.gov, providing your postal address. I requested a set for another property recently and was told it is currently taking about 2-3 weeks for copies of these documents to be provided. For NRHP sites that are also NHLs, these documents are scanned and available on-line at the NPS, and for some states they are provided by a State website (but I don't know about Maryland), so your best bet is just to put in the request. In terms of assessment, I am personally requesting that articles reflect these documents before receiving higher ratings within WP:NRHP. Again, nice work on the article. Hope this helps, doncram (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip - will do immediately. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you have asked or will ask for the NRHP docs for the separate NRHP that is the stables (refnum 73002163) associated with the mansion (refnum 77001520), too. The article should explicitly address the separate NRHP of the stables, I believe you would agree, including mention of its 1973 NRHP listing before the mansion's listing in 1977. The alternative would be develop a separate, linked article on the stables and relating the two articles to one another. If a section on the stables turns out to be very large, then that could be split off as a main article, eventually, however. doncram (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checking, I find there is an article Belair Stable Museum already existing, to which Belair Stables is a redirect, and I see that you do have a link to this from the "Today" section of the mansion article. Well, that article should be developed simultaneously and considered as part of this same peer review, I believe. It is impossible to consider the contribution of the mansion to horse-racing, without considering this article and where the bulk of material on horse-racing as opposed to mansion details should be. It seems the importance of the mansion is largely related to the importance of the stables. doncram (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested the documents for both sites. You raise a good point. There's also a related article on Belair Stud Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Belair Stud article, despite its name, seems to be about the stables and should be merged with the museum article material into an article titled Belair Stables (currently a redirect to the museum article). The Belair Stud article oughta be about the horse and line of horses, or it ought to be deleted, IMHO. I commented along these lines just now on Talk:Belair Stud. doncram (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comment 2 The referencing in the article is fairly extensive and precise. It appropriately gives page numbers in references. The reference links are constructed as complete new references with just the page number changed, however, so the references section then appears somewhat bloated and there is unnecessary duplication (although most of that duplication is not visible to the reader). I suggest you adopt the two-section style of referencing using "Notes" and "Bibliography" (or you could call it "Notes" and "References") as used in Joseph Priestley House, an NRHP article recently promoted to Featured Article. doncram (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I second several of the comments of the automated peer review, namely:

Those automated peer review suggestions have been available for a few days. You can go ahead and make changes in the article to address those suggestions and any other suggestions made here, and reply here when those issues are resolved. doncram (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:13 UTC)

United Abominations

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on it the last couple of days and plan to take it to FAC. This is the first album article I have rewritten.


Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Humana 8'

Hiya - found a number of issues of style, spelling and grammar in the article: I have tried to fix all of them. If there's anything obvious I've missed, fix it yourself - if there's anything you disagree with, revert and take it up with me.--Vox Humana 8' 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with J Milburn's comments on the matter. This is a long way off GA, never mind FA. Still, what are we here for? We're here to get it there...--Vox Humana 8' 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

Not a fan of Megadeth, at all, but happy to go ahead and give a read and a review. Also, I found myself being really picky about phrasing, so I'll just go ahead and change that myself. Article has also been edited by User:Vox Humana 8', who I was talking to while writing this review.

This really isn't your best, FA is a long, long way off. It really is lacking something, and I'm not sure what. Or maybe it's just me. Or maybe it's just because it's Megadeth. :) Seriously though, I wouldn't nominate for GA quite yet, nevermind FAC. Have a look around for some more sources, see what else you can find. There must be loads of good sources for something like this. J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first album article, so I don't quite have the hang of it yet. I am not nominating it for anything yet. I will work on this in a little while. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

That's about it, good work. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:18 UTC)

Enter Sandman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Good article, which has been reviewed once, failed FAC but was copy-edited since then by User:Malachirality of the League of Copyeditors. The only procedure missing there is proofreading, but it's taking a while for anyone to do that. Anyway, I'm very thankful to Malachirality. So, I think the article is near the FA quality, but I'd like to check any flaws it might have here. My aim is FA, tell me what the article needs to get there and what I can do. Any help appreciated.


Thanks, Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn

This article's fantastic, and the prose is brilliant. It will make a great featured article. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I think everything is addressed.
So, is it all ok now, for you? Any more suggestions? Thanks a lot.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 17:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:19 UTC)

Devourment

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article I started rewriting after seeing it on AfD, but then got sick of it. It had been sat in my userspace for months, and I have only 'completed' it today, and would like advice on how to get it to good article. Specific things I would like advice on- how does the members' list look? Should I include cats to indicate the many formations/breakups, or just leave with the first formation date? Of course, absolutely any comments welcome. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now a good article. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burningclean

I’m not the best at reviewing articles, but I think I covered the obvious points. Thank you for asking me to review by the way. Cheers, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan

Comments;

LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad

That's about all, good job. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 04:20 UTC)

Cello

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A few minor quibbles from someone not very familar with the instrument:

That is all, good article! -RunningOnBrains 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 21:02 UTC)

Heroes (TV series)

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Introduction and Welcome I am requesting that this article be peer reviewed. I has gone through so much progress since its last review and looks totally different than it did when it was first reviewed. I also hope to get a larger number of editors to review the page, as only two editors reviewed the page the first time it was reviewed last year. I acknowledge that the reflist needs major major clean up to meet Wikipedia standards...but I and I am sure the other project members would love to know what other improvements we can all make to this page to get it to featured article status. Please review this article entirely and if you have time, take a look at the subpages and other Heroes related pages located in the template at the bottom of the article. Please help us improve this article! Your thoughts matter! (smile)--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2.


(Peer review added on Thursday 28 February 2008, 21:50 UTC)

History of York City F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to see how this article could be further improved. The main problem is the prose which could use a good cleaning up, and so I have added it to the requests at WP:LOCE, but I'd like to get suggestions from the wider community. The ultimate goal is WP:FA, which will help contribute to York City F.C.'s push to WP:FT. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 29 February 2008, 02:47 UTC)

Tax protester constitutional arguments

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as the next step before submitting the article for FA status. Thanks, Morphh (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the automated review... left message on talk page. Morphh (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should work now, sorry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 29 February 2008, 02:48 UTC)

Duncan Edwards

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I only initially began work on this article because I happened to be in Dudley and decided to kill some time photographing places associated with the player, but now that I've spent some time on it I reckon its close to FA status. I modelled it mainly on the existing FA on Gilberto Silva, but would appreciate comments on what I might still need to work on............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

As ever, a lovely bit of work. To my comments...

Excellent stuff. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Let me know when you're at FAC! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

Very quick technical ones.

Interesting article, though I do find rows of footnote numbers detract from readability (this isn't a criticism of your article, it's a general whinge about all well-referenced articles; I understand perfectly well the need for loads of footnotes, I just wish the superscript numbers weren't so intrusive) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 29 February 2008, 21:19 UTC)

Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been improving this article, but can't seem to find any more ways to improve this article on my own. I would like to know more ways how I or others could improve this article to make it better.

Thanks, Hello32020 (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 29 February 2008, 22:00 UTC)

Huldrych Zwingli

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am requesting a peer review before taking the article to WP:FAC. OK, reading a long article on a sixteenth century theologian might sound pretty dull. But then maybe this article might convince you otherwise. If not, then at least tell me why!

Thanks, RelHistBuff (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated review

John Carter

Lead might be a bit long, particularly the first paragraph's content regarding the subject's academic career, unless there's evidence that he is in some way notable for his academic career, which doesn't seem indicated. It would probably help if you indicated Wildhaus was in Switzerland. Not sure if Henry Wolfllin really merits being included by name, as there seems no content on him at present. Linking citations directly to content being sourced, rataher than always at the end of the paragraph, might help as well. For FAs, it generally helps to have at least two reference citationss per paragraph, by the way. Might bear some pruning in some sections, but I'm not knowledgable enough about the subject one way or another to be sure of that. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I reduced the lead section. The universities are mentioned because they were centres of particular types of studies (humanism in Basel for example) and scholars mention these centres as early influences on Zwingli. I debated about giving out the names of Wölfllin and Bünzli, but since both Gäbler and Potter named them, I thought that wouldn't do much harm. As you noticed, each paragraph has a cite because each are summaries of several pages of text from the sources. When there are two cites to a paragraph, it means the two sources gave the same content. Sometimes there are statements that came from only one source. In that case I added a cite on the sentence. If there are specific statements that ought to be cited individually, then please point them out and I will add the cites. As for pruning, the article is not overly long compared to other FAs, but perhaps "Early years" and "Music" are candidates for some editing. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

The clause is taken straight out of Gäbler. I believe his statement referred to the fact that the average person who worships in a Christian church (whether Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, etc.) would instantly recognise the names of "Luther" and "Calvin". But "Zwingli" would often draw up a question mark. Concerning his "followers", the legacy section gives some explanations. To explain, you may notice that there are "Lutheran" churches, but no "Calvinist" churches. Those who follow Calvinism are called Reformed churches and they trace their heritage to several sources. Zwingli is considered to be the pioneer. However his impact on the church order, confession, liturgy, and theology comes largely through Bullinger and Calvin. But Zwingli's name is largely forgotten, which is unfortunate! There is a nice, complete explanation on the Reformed Church of Zürich's website (unfortunately in German only, under Zwinglis heutige Bedeutung) --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments. I will work on these. I really appreciate more criticism on the prose (as you can see in my introduction above)! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have taken care of all five items now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate wikilinking Zwinglianism. As stated in the legacy section, there is no agreed definition of "Zwinglianism". It was someone else who put a redirect of Zwinglianism to Theology of Huldrych Zwingli. The Theology article and an article on Zwinglianism are really not the same! I much prefer using "Theology of Huldrych Zwingli" because it makes no claim what is "Zwinglianism", but simply describes his theology. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the lead now. It was a bit of laziness on my part as I hurriedly wrote the lead after working on the article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a very nice article.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you see more bad prose, please don't hesitate to comment! --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies

Overall.
I added some details in the Legacy section --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add cites as I add content and if there are any controversial statements I will also add cites to the sentences. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About content
Yes, he was. I will add that fact. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the sources and there are two events. While Zwingli was in Glarus (before Julius II died in 1513), the pope gave him an annual pension of 50 gulden for his support, i.e., Zwingli supported sending mercenary troops from Glarus to Julius II, so in effect he was part of the pension system that he would eventually disown. Zwingli was also appointed papal chaplain, but that was in 1518 when he was in Einsiedeln, Schwyz. The office was assigned ritual duties, but only if he was in Rome, which Zwingli never was. --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put in "papal partisan" to describe Zwingli. Basically, it was the shift from the pope to France that forced Zwingli to leave. I hope it is clear now. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The death of Andreas Zwingli by the plague is mentioned in the sources (Gäbler said that he died in Glarus). Gäbler mentioned it in an earlier chapter, separate from describing the Zürich outbreak and the Pestlied, so it is somewhat hard to link the two events as a defining moment. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another reviewer had mentioned about providing a context section. I am preparing one now. There were a lot of political issues running in the background as well. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added new context section. Hopefully it helps the reader to see the whole picture. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence with a cite about his concerns for the poor in the legacy section. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was only recently put together. Will improve this. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very promising article. Well done, --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments! I will respond to each item as I get through them. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Friday 29 February 2008, 23:22 UTC)

Anfield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is capable of reaching FA status. It is also part of my drive to get Liverpool F.C. to Featured Topic status. The article is based on the structure of existing Featured Articles such as Priestfield Stadium and Portman Road. Thanks in advance, as always, for your time and comments. NapHit (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello NapHit, here you go...

That's it for now. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC}

Dealt with all comments, except graph which I will produce soon hopefully if I can find some way of producing one NapHit (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

Looks good, here's some minor points that need looking at:

I know this seems like a lot, but they're all minor points which should be easily corrected. Other than that the article looks excellent, best of luck with it..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Saturday 1 March 2008, 21:10 UTC)

A Magical Christmas of Magic with Harry and the Potters and Wizardly Friends and Magical Singing Creatures

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I request information on how I can expand this article. I have submitted article for a peer review previously, however I believe it was not enough. Thanks --Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 17 March 2008, 10:17 UTC)

List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on whether or not it satisfies Wikipedia:Featured list criteria before I nominate it. Currently, it is missing images, and I am looking to address that, but I wish to see any additional feedback. Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 17 March 2008, 10:17 UTC)

List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on whether or not it satisfies Wikipedia:Featured list criteria before I nominate it. Currently, it is missing images, and I am looking to address that, but I wish to see any additional feedback. Thanks, — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Peer review added on Monday 17 March 2008, 10:17 UTC)

More