Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Misplaced Pages's peer review is a way to receive ideas on how to improve articles that are already decent. It may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade" (but if the article isn't well-developed, please read here before asking for a peer review). Follow the directions below to open a peer review. After that, the most effective way to receive review comments is by posting a request on the talk page of a volunteer.
Nominating
Anyone can request peer review. Editors submitting a new request are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments.
Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it.
Click within the notice to create a new peer review discussion page.
Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to say what kind of comments or contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be automatically listed within an hour.
Avoid re-editing your own nomination. This makes your nomination disappear from the List of unanswered reviews, resulting in delays in it being picked up by a reviewer. If this has happened, add your peer review to Template:Peer review/Unanswered peer reviews sidebar by clicking here.
Please consider reciprocity and every time you nominate a review, respond or add to another review (current list here), so that you won't have to wait too long before someone comments on yours.
To change a topic
The topic parameter can be changed by altering the template {{Peer review page|topic=X}} on an article's talk page. The topic (|topic=X) on the template can be set as one of the following:
arts
langlit (language & literature)
philrelig (philosophy & religion)
everydaylife
socsci (social sciences & society)
geography
history
engtech (engineering & technology)
natsci (natural sciences & mathematics)
If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with General topics.
All types of article can be peer reviewed. Sometimes, a nominator wants a peer review before making a featured article nomination. These reviews often wait longer than others, because the type of review they need is more detailed and specialised than normal. There are some things you should know before doing this:
Have a look at advice provided at featured articles, and contact some active reviewers there to contribute to your review
Please add your article to the sidebar Template:FAC peer review sidebar, and remove when you think you have received enough feedback
Step 3: Waiting for a review
Check if your review is appearing on the unanswered list. It won't if more than a single edit has been made. If you've received minimal feedback, or have edited your review more than once, you can manually add it to the backlog list (see Step 2: Requesting a review, step 6). This ensures reviewers don't overlook your request.
Please be patient! Consider working on some other article while the review is open and remember to watch it until it is formally closed. It may take weeks before an interested volunteer spots your review.
Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note that requests still may be closed if left unanswered for more than a month and once no more contributions seem likely. See Step 4.
Step 4: Closing a review
To close a review:
On the article's talk page, remove the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page and replace this with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, where |archive=N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. |archive=1 for /archive1).
On the peer review page, remove {{Peer review page|topic=X}} and replace this with {{Closed peer review page}}.
When can a review be closed?
If you are the nominator, you can close the review at any time, although this is discouraged if a discussion is still active.
If the review is to determine whether an article can be nominated for GA, FA or FL status, and a reviewer believes it has a reasonable chance of passing these, they may close the review and encourage a direct nomination (see here).
If a review is answered and the nominator is inactive for more than one week.
If a request is unanswered for more than three months.
There is a script to help automate closing peer reviews. To use the script:
Copy importScript('User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/peerReviewCloser.js'); into your Special:MyPage/common.js
When you view a review, click on the tab that says "More" and then "Close peer review". The tab can be found near the "History" tab. This should update the article's talk page and the review page.
If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment on the peer review page.
Feel free to improve the article yourself!
Interested in reviewing articles of your subject area? Add your name to the volunteer list.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
I am considering running this through FAC sometime in the next few months (it has to be in a few months because she has a new album coming out and the thing needs to be stable first.) It's associated with the Musical Theatre WikiProject, and has gone through substantial editing. It's already been through one peer review, but I'd like some additional feedback before I do so. Thanks in advance. Crystallina (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt04:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a firm idea how musician articles should be structured, but this one doesn't feel properly laid out. Perhaps that there is so much on career and little else. The section on music and voice is a good idea, but it should probably be broader and a greater proportion of the article. It should include more description of here vocal quality, acting ability, etc, such as the best reviews that cover those. Try checking the other FA's on musicians, find the best ones, and see if you can distill an improved layout from them. - Taxman19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to add more to these sections, but I'm limited by what's out there as far as sources. I'll keep looking but there isn't as much information as there is for, say, Mariah Carey. Crystallina (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… in common with much of London, this is a sub-division of a sub-division. It's certainly important and has its own history. There are large elements of the How to write about Geo that are better dealt with the higher political unit (London Borough level). I'd be interested in editors' viewpoints on what should and should not be included in an article at this level, and what is needed to move this article forward.
Comment immediate things that occur to me from WP:UKCITIES is that distances from the centre of London should be included, and that notable people should not be presented as lists. The history section is referenced, but there are few throughout the rest of the article. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I would probably say that the education section could be expanded and the transport section either expanded with a lead or condensed. Also note that not all of the references are actually references, just notes on the areas, so check these. Maybe use {{cite}} more. And obviously refernce more generally. Simply south (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
ScienTOMogy was reviewed and successfully passed as a Good Article, and a nomination for deletion closed a few days later. The result of the deletion discussion was a unanimous "Keep" (save for the editor that had nominated it for deletion). The article has remained stable since then for a little under a month now, and I wanted to get some input to see if there was anything else that could be done to touch up/improve the article's quality. Thanks,
Cirt (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. As the semi-automated Peer Review in this case is rather small, I'm just going to copy it below, and address each point side-by-side when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to reach at least Good Article Candidacy. I want any comments/contributions possible to improve the article
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I switched the order of some references around to comply with the Manual of Style. One thing that stands out from looking over the article quickly is that it switches between present tense (eg. Jillian Hill sings a song), past tense (eg. The match started off with John Cena...) and conditional tense (Shawn Michaels would then attempt...). An article like this should all be in past tense (ie. "Jillian Hill sang a song" and "Shawn Michaels then attempted..."), as the event happened in the past. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing some copyediting. A couple of concerns:
1) I don't understand this sentence: In the climax of the match, Nitro slammed Jeff onto the barricaded applying a facelock later in the ring.
Well I see what you mean, I mean to say "In the climax of the match, Nitro would slam Jeff onto the barricade, giving MNM control over the Hardys.TrUcO9311 (talk)15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
2) Why would Jamie Noble, the third entrant in the Cruiserweight Open, enter after Jimmy Wang Yang, the sixth entrant?
3) "However, Kane recuperated and chokeslammed Booker following a pin, thus winning the match." This sentence seems to imply that Kane pinned Booker, then recovered and chokeslammed him.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering a nomination for Good Article or Featured Article status. Suggestions for which path is more appropriate for this article are welcome.
I'm specifically looking for suggestions on section ordering, as well as overall article content - are some sections too trivial for an encyclopedia article? Are there aspects of the subject that should be covered in an encyclopedia article that are missing from or undercovered in this one? Suggestions for where the references need improvement (quality or quantity) are also something I'm looking for.
And of course any other improvements that need to be made to make this one of Misplaced Pages's recognized higher quality articles.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A couple quick comments (not a full review). First, I commend the editors working on this article so seriously. I'm assuming this is a high-vandalism article so it takes a lot of patience. Kudos!
First, expand the lead as per WP:LEAD. As far as sections, I think you've done a great job: nothing seems irrelevant (though the "Other uses" section borders on it... but good sourcing overrides any complaint I might have) but maybe reconsidering the organization is a good idea. "History," for example, seems important enough to move up. Then, just a suggestion here, maybe move "Prevalence" into a subsection under it, renamed as "Prevalence today." "Etymology" might become a subsection here too, if you're so inclined. I wonder, too, if the Roman Catholic Church subsection belongs under "Role in sex education" - may there needs to be a "Controversy" or "Debates" section? You could throw the "Disposal" section under there too. Really, all of what I'm saying here is just off the top of my head; I'm assuming you'll put more thought into it and decide if it'll actually work!
I would suggest putting some consideration into the images. I actually think there are too many that don't tie in or at least seem out of place. Make sure the images are complementing the article's text, not just tossed in (the image from Buenos Aries is a good example: the article says nothing about it, so the image seems out of place). Images you don't end up using could be turned into a category on Wikimedia Commons, if there isn't one already. Also, consider moving a couple to the left so it's not so right-heavy.
Also, consider expanding why Somalia bans condoms... and add a source about condoms having negligible impact in landfills.
I've expanded the lead, although the new prose may still be a little rough around the edges. How far up would you move the History section? The pill article has it as the very first section, as does the general birth control article, although I'm unsure if that's the information most readers want to see at the top of this article. I did remove two of the images that didn't seem directly related to the text, although left-handed images look funny to me in this article's mostly short section. I put "Etymology" inside "History", created a "Debate and criticism" section, and put "Prevalence" inside a new "Use" section. I also just reworded the sentence about the condoms in landfills and used the existing source (which says "the little bit of foil or plastic you have to throw away... seem like small prices to pay for the protection that condoms offer"). Condoms were banned in Somalia to comply with Sharia law, although I'm hesitant to get into that in the short prevalence section for fear of giving that item undue weight.
A useful article with plenty of good, encyclopedic images. Agree the article needs some layout/section help. In general, I'd recommend using fewer headings; for this article you could "roll up" smaller sections into a bigger one. I usually don't do more than a ===Level 3=== heading. Under "varieties" use the following, and suggest you not use any more than:
==Varieties==
===Latex===
===Polyurethane===
===Labskin===
===Experimental===
The level 4 headings have been removed from the "Varieties" section.
Get rid of the "Overview" section, this is what the lead is supposed to be.
Done
The "effectiveness" section layout is good. Consider putting "Etymology" under the history section.
Done
Prevalence section should be expanded or possible combined with another section.
Consider creating a section for "use" (might be able to think of a better title for it) where you describe using the condom; include the knot-tie disposal and "Some men and women feel..." bit under this section. Put the environmental impact stuff under the specific condom variety in the varieties section.
"Prevalence" section put inside new "Use" section, environmental impact put inside new "Debate and criticism" section.
The "Other uses" section seems to be trivia-like; better to write a few paragraphs summarizing how different applications take advantage of the condom's ability to stretch and not break etc.
I'm going to have to think about this one some more. The other uses are really disparate, and I'm having a hard time putting them together in a coherent paragraph or two.
The lead could use some expansion, I would expect a 2 or possibly 3 paragraph lead in an article this size. The lead should summarize all the major points of the article. (eg, should mention that condoms can be used for many purposes etc.)
Done.
Talk about the latex condom in more detail (the lambskin section gets good treatment, but not the latex section)
The lambskin section was actually mostly unsourced, so I really shortened that section. The latex section, I think, was bigger than it looked - I moved a good part of it into the new "Debate and criticism" section, and I hope the new (shorter) latex section reads better now.
Image:Posecondom.jpg - sure this is not copyvio? fx image page.
I searched Google images first 30 pages of hits for "condom" and "condom instruction". No idea where that image came from, although someone who knew French might have better luck. I've put a request at Talk:Condom#Image copyright issue to see if anyone else can find more information on the image.
I fixed the link in the lead, that was the only one I found.
..."An Egyptian drawing of a condom being worn has been found to be 3,000 years old. It is unknown, however, if the Egyptian pictured wearing the device intended to use it for contraception, or for ritual purposes." Double-check out facts here. Calling this a "condom" might be misleading; if I could see what inscription actually looks like I could offer an interpretation. A better source might be a scholarly Egyptology reference rather than a planned parenthood reference.
WebMD also has that information , as does Encarta . Would one or both of those references be better, or does this need a primary source?
I think WebMD and Encarta are both tertiary sources like wikipedia, and may have gotten their information from the same source. I'm not doubting it, but for my own curiosity and just to make sure it is reliable, it would be good to have a more authoritative source. Planned parenthood would be a good source for information on pregnancy rates or condom usage statistics, but not ancient history. Being an ancient Egypt buff myself, if I happen to come across a reference I'll be sure to add it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Planned Parenthood does give a reference for the statement, but it's also a tertiary source:
Parisot, Jeannette (1985). Johnny Come Lately: A Short History of the Condom. London: The Journeyman Press Ltd. ISBN1-85172-0006.
The article needs expansion, especially in cultural perceptions of condom use, and how condom use has increased over time and the extent to which they have reduced the rates of STDs.
You're right. That will be a longer-term project for me, though.
Try turning one-sentence paragraphs into full paragraphs. Single-sentences standing alone could also be incorporated into a larger paragraph, so that the article doesn't feel stubby or listy.
I did a little bit of single-sentence incorporation. The remaining sentences, like with the other uses section, I'm going to have to think about how to integrating. Or it may be another area where expansion is needed, which may require some time to research.
I for one think the number of images is OK, but they need to be better integrated. Once the article is expanded, the images won't feel so crowded.
For now, I did remove two of the images that were not directly related to the text.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like this article to reach GA status someday. I would like to see whether the most recent edits made to it are heading in the right way and I would like to recieve specefic feedback on how to make the article better and address its lacks.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon . is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the improvements made to it, and what else would have to be done to it to make it even better (more pics, I know)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Review by Jeff
This is a pretty good start, but I have bone to pick: the term selective catalytic reduction certainly covers more than just reduction of NOx. Imagine if the article on reduction only talked about catalytic converters. In fact, the catalytic converter is itself an example of selective catalytic reduction. Consider changing the title to 'Selective catalytic reduction of nitrogen oxides' or something along those lines. Many things can be catalytically reduced in a selective way; industry buzzwords don't always make good article titles; you might have to think hard about which title to go with.
Sources: You need a lot more. I see only 4 or so unique sources, you probably need about 15 at least, including scholarly publications, books, and other print sources, not just websites. Your sources should be properly cited as well, including page numbers, year of issue, access date, etc. Suggest using the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. Other sources to add might be mentions in the press, such as newspapers and articles.
Consider adding information about the history of the development of the technology. If the article is only going to talk about SCR of nitrogen oxides, then add information about how many plants are in operation, worldwide distribution of the technology, and any other things you can think of to make the coverage more thorough.
One good thing I see is that the article is fairly balanced. Often, industrial technology articles with environmental applications are written entirely from the perspective of the environmentalist, with much less emphasis on the actual technology. Still, I do get the sense that the article was written in a power plant, or at least from that perspective, because much of the article relates to the technology as it applies to plant applications. Try to keep the article balanced, with a wide perspective not limited to just one application of the technology.
As for images, I would only be looking for one more: a picture of a unit in operation, or perhaps a picture of some element of the unit. A good start, plenty to work on. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated it for a GA status recently (it failed, twice) and I'm unsure on what the article needs to do to be improved. Feedback would greatly be appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for set criteria for determining notability for inclusion. So far I have established a precise definition for parody (humourous pop culture references don't count) and excluded all material I cannot find a source for. But I think a more airtight form of sourcing may be necessary. Serendious10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA. Compared to current FAs like Tulsa and Minneapolis we can't be far away. All constructive feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks. • Freechild'sup?10:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Review by Titoxd
The Elkhorn annexation seems like a rather important topic, as it is covered in the lead section; but it is only covered in passing in the Omaha, Nebraska#Neighborhoods section. Expand to satisfy WP:WIAFA §1.b.
Make sure to use s throughout the article in unit measurements. See WP:UNITS.
The city and its suburbs formed the 60th-largest metropolitan area in the United States in 2000, with an estimated population of 822,549 (2006) residing in eight counties or about 1.2 million within a 50 mile (80 km) radius. - the sentence is a bit confusing, particularly because of the ambiguity given by "or".
Capitalize the first word of the third paragraph in the lead.
at the turn of the century Omaha was known as a "wide-open" city, meaning that anything went, - what do you mean by "anything went"? (I understand what it means, but I'm not sure if that may not be understood by non-American readers. You may want to link to Wild West, something similar, or reword the sentence.
Music in Omaha has always been important to the city, - the "in Omaha" is redundant. pipe the link and reword it.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition passed by the riverbanks that would later become the city of Omaha in 1804, and met on Council Bluff at a point about 20 miles (30 km) north of present-day Omaha, at which point they met with the Otoe. - confusing sentence with two verbs. Split and reword.
Some of this land was later used to entice Nebraska Territory legislators in an area called Scriptown. - it's not readily apparent that Scriptown is part of Omaha.
The history of the cession by the Omaha Tribe to the U.S. government is introduced in the first image of the History section, but is not developed in the prose.
The Early development section is unreferenced. While this might be due to Summary style, the statements about prostitution seem controversial enough to merit inline citations.
The picture used for the Enola Gay is just tangentially related to Omaha. Consider removing it, or replacing it with a different picture with a stronger connection to the city.
What happened in the '60s, '70s, and '80s? The article jumps straight to the 1990's...
The Civil Rights Movement section seems fairly short. How exactly did this region contribute to the national civil rights movement?
The Metropolitan area section includes counties listed in descending order. Replacing the list with a a table with per-county population totals would be better, IMO.
Early neighborhood development of ethnic enclaves, including Little Italy, Little Bohemia and Greek Town, have given way to gated communities. This sentence gives the impression that gated communities have sprung and replaced the historic neighborhoods of Little Italy, Little Bohemia, etc... is this true? Or is the sentence trying to say that development has shifted from ethnic enclaves to the growth of gated communities in different areas?
Contemporary music groups either located in or originally from Omaha include Mannheim Steamroller, Bright Eyes, The Faint, Cursive, Azure Ray, 49 cents, Tilly and the Wall and 311.
The demolition of the Cinerama Indian Hills Theater by Nebraska Methodist Hospital represented a real loss to American cinematic history. - why?
The Racial and ethnic tension section seems like it could be combined with the Civil Rights Movement section, unless I'm missing something obvious.
References for the Climate section would be nice. Also, having only one level-3 subheading ("===Climate===") under a level-2 heading ("==Geography==") is frowned upon.
Are all the sub-headings in the Infrastructure section necessary? These are all one-paragraph sections that can be condensed into one big section without loss of content. Alternatively, expand them.
This article was recently put up for a WP:GAC nom, which caused a flurry of editing activity and discussion on the talk page, and the GA was not successful. This Peer Review is to gauge where to go from here to best improve the article's quality, and elicit discussion both from uninvolved editors and those that wish to invest time in improving the article's quality. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Amazing, I wouldn't have thought this subject could be written about so well.
also known as Chronarion, -> Chronarion, move the reference tag after punctuation, not before
Add more "retrieved on" dates to the references. Some have them, some don't. "Uncyclopedia joins Wikia." for example. For a wiki, the date it said something is very important! Same for author, write that Angela Beesley wrote that one.
Were Chronarion and Stillwaters originally Misplaced Pages editors?
leading to the deletion of many new articles. move the earlier ref before the later one ->
There seems to be some overlap about the Chinese/Taiwanese encyclopedias and their blocks between Criticism and In other languages sections. Are there two different blocks, the Golden Shield and Great Firewall, or are these the same thing?
Done all except the Misplaced Pages editors part. They do have accounts (User:Chronarion and ) whose contributions started before Uncyclopedia's creation, but I'm not sure how to cite them properly. --Jedravent (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has made large leaps towards being NPOV and out-of-universe in the past couple of months through a series of merges and vast rewrites. A review will help bring to light problems with the articles that others like myself have missed and allow us to make it even better.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:FICT you want to write from an out-of-universe point of view. When I read "The Egyptian Gods are one-of-a-kind all-powerful cards created by Maximillion Pegasus," I went looking to his article to see if he is a game designer with a weird name, rather than a fictional character himself.
The article says "when summoned..." giving game effects. Later the article says "they do not possess effect text". So which is it?
I've listed this article for peer review because writing has proven harder than I expected. It's my first article on a manga series so I had absolutely no frame of reference. Besides the usual pointers, I'd like to know if there's anything lacking and if it's good enough. Thanks, Nohansen (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. :) I have some things to say and it'll probably come over as pretty aggressive, so don't take it too personally. It's in the nature of peer reviews that they hurt the main contributors badly. :) Also, everything which follows is my personal opinion even if I don't specify it. :)
Lead.
Too many paragraphs. Three is the absolute maximum IMO but in this case, just two would be enough: first three can be merged together without much information loss and so can the last two.
There are no inline quotations in the lead, which is a bit ambiguous: on one hand, it unloads the section greatly, yet on the other, it makes one nervous about whether the statements are sourced or not.
Plot.
It is just a brief introduction, a synopsis. One'd expect a complete brief summary of manga storyline from a good article. Plot differences in television series and movie could be then covered in the respective sections. Oh, and the plot summary should be at least superficially OOU.
Characters.
I'd add the names of all Dragons (at least, in their original allegiances) to the respective sections, just for the sake of completeness. Plus, of course, links to their respective sections in the characters list.
Publication.
The reason why the title was changed to X/1999 appears unsourced. Overall, it might be a good idea for someone to go over an article and post {{fact}}s wherever needed. I could do that but I require your consent.
Adaptations.
See my comments on the plot.
Design.
"Clamp's X defies convention" is too strong a statement. It definitely needs to be mildered down a bit. "According to critics, Clamp's..." Or someting like that.
Too brassy: "ladies of Clamp", "childhood sweetheart", "to tell the tale", "walk their path" (overall, that whole paragraph violates the encyclopedic tone guidelines heavily).
"The ensemble cast, inspired on Takizawa Okikuni's Nansō Satomi Hakkenden" Source?
The whole duality discussion in Motifs can be merged in a single paragraph. As can the dreaming and the fate parts, respectively.
Media.
I'd place this section immediately after the Adaptations, because they describe similar things.
The images appear to be appropriately tagged and FUed except for the one in the infobox: is it really a logo rather than manga cover? :) --Koveras10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You've been helpful, thank you. Like I said, this article has proven considerably harder to write than my other two, so any criticism is welcomed. I'll get to work in the next few of hours.
About the sources: Besides the naming issue with Dark Horse Comics (which I got from X's ANN entry) all is sourced with the CLAMP interviews. The line about Hakkenden comes from the interview in CLAMP no Kiseki 8. Since I already used that inline citation earlier in the paragraph, I though it'd look bloated if I used it again. Same with the lead; I normally don't cite the lead since it's a summary (of a well-referenced article).
If you want to tag some stuff as {{fact}}s is fine by me. I'll provide the citation.
And the infobox image it's neither a manga cover nor a logo. It's the TV series title screen. I'll fix that, too.--Nohansen12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, IMO it's better to place the citation at the end of the paragraph if it sources several statements: it kinda transmits the message "everything up 'til now was taken from this source", whereas a footnote after the first sentence doesn't really say anything about what follows... --Koveras14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because this is quiet a new article, and so am I. I've read some university-related articles here but I still don't see if there's a standard in such type of articles. Editing this article, Far Eastern University Institute of Nursing, by others (peers I guess) would be of great help, I hope that responses would be unbiased, discriminative and offensive like I read in some articles before. I just wanted to improve this article, and to ask others what they think of it, and what the article needs (to improve on, to add more information on something, etc.).
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
one of the top performing nursing school ; one of the best Master's program-- need plurals: schools, programs. Also you need to cite extravagant praise like that. Who says it's one of the top, by what standards?
Backed up by its new Dean; Annabelle R. Borromeo, RN, Ph.D, CNS - "new" makes it more of a current events piece than an article that can be read equally well 50 years from now. Is Borromeo somehow more important than the half dozen others? Also why give the degrees in the lead? Most deans have degrees.
Previous Deans of the Institute of Nursing - if they were all deans, how can #3 be first dean of the Institute of Nursing?
ANNABELLE REYES BORROMEO, RN, PhD, CCRN, CNS, CPAN - again, seems to be a section about the person rather than the school. She obtained her Master of Science in Nursing Degree from the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, Texas ... she moved from staff nurse, unit teacher, head nurse ... not that relevant to the school, this is supposed about the school, right? And don't use all capital letters for a person's name, the section heading is sufficient.
Her leadership skills were soon recognized; Her life’s mission is to teach, motivate, and inspire. - Please cut down the puffery.
Because of the consistent and sterling performance of nursing graduates - more puffery. This can be cited by actual numbers, so cite the numbers. Say that this is the best result among the 18 schools surveyed by test X in 1998 or whatever, and give a reference to a reliable source. I think there is more like that in the article, making it like a press piece. Try to write the article objectively, as if this were one article out of a dozen on nursing schools.
Move the lead image to the right, otherwise the lead section is squashed and the table of contents is in the middle, looking awkward. --AnonEMouse15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with AnonEMouse; most of the text about Dr. Reyes Borromeo is extraneous to this article. I would take it out. Also the mission statement and anything else that (hint, hint) is either a copyright violation or, if not, then an adaptation which the school might find objectionable. That leaves not much information about the school itself. Re the History section, some questions occur to me: Why was the school founded? What was its expected role and how does that differ from its actual role? Eg, was the school intended to train only women but now is co-ed? Or vice versa? --Una Smith (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WillowW and I have worked up this article on an important and interesting eighteenth-century publisher. I intend on taking it to FAC, so comments along the lines of its readiness for that venue would be much appreciated. (This article is currently nominated at GAC as well, but they are very backlogged over there.) Awadewit | talk07:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Review from Scartol
I'll skip the usual platitude about how this is another fine article from two of Misplaced Pages's finest editors. Anyway, it is. I doubt I can offer much substantial constructive assistance, but I am good at picking nits. Therefore, let us begin!
Lead
The last three sentences of ¶ one and the first sentence of ¶ two all start with "Johnson". I don't know how or if it's possible, but some variety would be good.
These two characteristics of his home—Dissent and commercialism—remained an important part of Johnson's character… "characteristics … remained … … part": I dunno, it feels wrong to go from plural to singular. (But then "these characteristics remained important parts…" also looks weird.) You make the call.
it was unusual for the younger son of a family living in relative obscurity to move to London and become a bookseller. I removed the final "to" here, but then it occurred to me that maybe it's intentional; if so, please re-add it.
It was supposed to be for parallel construction: "to move to London and to become a bookseller". I have restored it, if that's ok. Awadewit | talk11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Scholars have speculated that Johnson was bound out to Keith because he was associated with local Liverpool Baptists. Presumably the "he" refers to Keith, but maybe it needs to be clearer?
The appearance of religious books is rather sudden; maybe say: "…religious texts began to dominate his book list…"?
They didn't begin to - they did from the start. I have tried to make this clearer by making Johnson's connection to Dissent more clearly religious in the previous sentence. Awadewit | talk11:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
…he also published works relating to Liverpool, his hometown, and medical texts. For purposes of series continuity, maybe make the last item "medicine"? (Unless he was publishing works about other works about medicine?)
No, I deliberately left it because I couldn't think of one. Let's see. How about "Fuseli was his closest friend until Johnson's death."? – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society. Whose induction?
Priestley's - this is supposed to be inductive. :) Why would it be worth stating that Priestley trusted Johnson to handle Johnson's own induction? Suggestions? Awadewit | talk11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Sometimes I slip away from logic and go into pure sentence-structure mode. I trust you to decide if it needs revision. Re-reading this sentence, I don't think it does. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Newly independent, with an established reputation, Johnson did not struggle as he had before. This is the first we hear (unless I'm mistaken) of previous struggles. Include a mention earlier?
It's just a general struggle. Sentence changed to: Newly independent, with a reputation, Johnson did not need to struggle to establish himself as he had early in his career.Awadewit | talk11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I supposed to know what the Chapter Coffee House is/was? The quote makes me feel like I ought (and makes me want a cup of joe).
No, you aren't supposed to know. I don't know and the sources didn't say anything beyond this. I was hoping someday someone might add something there. :) Awadewit | talk11:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
While Johnson looked to his business interests, he did not necessarily publish only works that would enrich him. I didn't want to remove "necessarily" in a unilateral fashion, but if I owned the article, I'd take it out.
…he helped Priestley publish the Theological Repository, which was a financial failure, but which called on its contributors to submit… How about: "…Repository, a financial failure which called on…"? (Again, I didn't feel safe making this change myself.)
He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790… The end of this sentence is a bit confusing (two possible subjects for the verb "publishing").
Now reads: He continued his support in 1787, 1789, and 1790, when Dissenters introduced repeal bills in Parliament, and published much of the pro-repeal literature written by Priestley and others.Awadewit | talk11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This probably isn't the place for it, but I feel compelled to say that the internationalist in me always bristles when "American" is used to refer to people in the US. I know American Revolution is the most widely-used term, so it's not a big deal. I just have to always be difficult. (By splitting my infinitives, for example.)
Yeah, I guess. Actually, I think it's just a personal problem. I know people don't mean anything by it. I should get over it. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I split infinitives, too, by the way. Do you know why English has that rule? In the eighteenth-century, when grammarians were codifying English grammar (part of nation-building and imperialism projects), they looked to Latin and since Latin doesn't split its infinitives, they decided English shouldn't either. However, the Latin rules make sense for that language while they don't for ours. The grammarians just wanted English to be more Latinate. So, I don't feel bad about splitting. Awadewit | talk11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's really interesting to watch everyday English gradually morphing back into German, putting its verbs at the ends of clauses, with the adverbs just before. I hope I live long enough to see it fully completed. ;) Willow12:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting. I learned something about the language today. Now I have to offer a language fact. Umm, let's see. Did you know Bling bling was entered into the OED in 2003? – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. Did you see the story about the language is Mexico that is dying because the last two living speakers are refusing to speak to each other? They got into a spat. Awadewit | talk17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
…and the inalienable right to liberty of conscience", rights he viewed Dissenters as fighting for as well. Is it not possible to just say: "rights Dissenters were fighting for as well."?
"Important early publications" seems like an odd subhead title, given all the other important publications which have already been mentioned.
I know - it is an artifact of an older version before we had all of these new, exciting sections. Do you have any ideas? That section is kind of disparate. Awadewit | talk11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I assume no author was listed for Laws Respecting Chicks? (Do I have enough street cred as a feminist to make that joke? Am I going to be assaulted on my way home?)
Oh I'm so ready to work on EG. I forced myself to grade some papers this morning, but now I can work with a clear conscience. Boring side note – When I got back from the libraries the other day I realized that in my zeal I had checked out the same book from two different libraries! I've got a problem. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you need the sentence: Johnson had begun his career as a relatively cautious publisher of religious and scientific tracts. The earlier parts of the article seem to make this clear.
Just in case someone skips to this part of the article. Also, it's a nice little summary to remind readers of the chronology, I think. Awadewit | talk11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This is Cowper's major poem. It deserves a page - there is tons of stuff written on it. I'm not totally sure you could write a page on the others. I would have to look into it and see how much scholarship there is. Awadewit | talk
Quotes like "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England" which aren't attributed in the article make me uneasy; I much prefer the Chard emphasizes that it "was held together…" variety. Maybe this is WP:ILIKEIT.
This kind of quote does not need to be attributed in my opinion because it is not just one person's theory on Linnaeus. The only reason I have it in quotation marks is because I am using the precise words of the author. However, the idea is widely held. I only attribute quotations or ideas that belong (intellectually) to an author. Otherwise, the prose just becomes weighted down. Awadewit | talk11:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I trust you on it. I suppose I've just trained myself to attribute every quote within the text itself. Personal preference, I guess.
I don't know how relevant the deviance from 90° of the house's walls is. Or how grammatically correct that sentence I just wrote is.
Johnson's periodical, the Analytical Review, published a summary and review within a couple of weeks and a mere month after Burke published, Wollstonecraft responded with her Vindication of the Rights of Men. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Am I missing something, or does it need to be split in two?
In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley. This sounds as though it's related to the previous sentence (about Barlow's radicalization), but that seems wrong. Reword?
Now reads: In 1794 Johnson even considered emigrating to America with Priestley to escape the increasing pressure he felt from conservatives and the government.Awadewit | talk11:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
1800s: Declining years and death
Maybe a word about how he came back after the second fire? (It just feels jarring to see discussion of what he published all of a sudden.)
The pound symbol is, I believe, used several times before "Johnson's remaining £60,000 fortune". Is it an oversight that it's linked here for the first time? (Is this a different symbol from the one in the Godwin sentence? Am I showing a colossal ignorance of lbs?)
Awadewit dislikes infoboxes; my peeve is the blue pull-quote box. Can't that be worked into the article or something?
Well, I generally agree with you on this, but since this is a whole poem, I don't feel so badly about it. Poems don't work into articles very well. Awadewit | talk12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Does it have to be such a dark blue? As a reader, too, I'd prefer to have some sort of context if it's available – maybe a word on who Edgeworth was (she's only listed among other people) and why she felt compelled to write it? – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought all quote boxes had to be in that blue. I'll try to find a lighter blue. I don't know much about the composition of the poem. I'll see if I can track something down. Awadewit | talk17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
He didn't own Richardson's works? Good. Richardson was a third-rate idiot hack who got lucky and accidentally helped to invent the novel. (After I was forced to read Pamela – scribbling angry notes in it with a Sharpie™ all the while – I stabbed it, tore pages out, set it on fire, and threw it out of my second-floor dorm room window. True story.)
OK, now I have to read that book. By combining a page-turner with a bodice-ripper, Richardson produced a page-ripper. ;) It's very good, though, that an English teacher and writer should feel so passionately about literature and the craft. :) Willow12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's one way of putting it. =) I believe the police called it "willful defacement of historically canonized literature". (Just kidding. The police never got involved.) Awad: Find the eighteenth-century charm? I'll be honest and admit that I have no interest in looking. Every person gets to be closed-minded about something; Pamela is my something. – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Does the part about how much his books cost to produce (and their quality) belong in "Legacy"?
I wasn't sure where else to put it, since it was so general. Apparently, this was an important contribution he made. Awadewit | talk12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think so. I mean the Analytical Review wanted to inform people, did it not? (Did you see the cool new info I added on it being a part of the "encyclopedizing" movement of the eighteenth century?) Awadewit | talk12:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would fit in the "1760s: Beginnings in publishing" section. (I searched for "encyclo" and found nothing.) – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's there: In repackaging other publications for its readers, the Analytical Review was part of the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century. The journal shared in the desire to organize and classify knowledge for its readers while at the same time recognizing the ultimate futility of the project. In so doing, the journal's editors believed that they were preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future.Awadewit | talk17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff! I've learned a lot, and I thank you for inviting me into this project. Now go away! I'm finally ready to work on Red Emma! =) Good luck with this, y'all. – Scartol • Tok23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could assess this article against the GA criteria now that you've read it? I have a feeling it will sit there for a very long time. Awadewit | talk12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a Johanna-come-lately, but I don't think that I could've contributed much more to two such sharp-eyed Wikipedians. Thank you, Scartol, for your meticulous review! :) Willow12:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Does GA have a quick-pass criteria? Seems like this would sail through even FA at this point. Why go through GA? – Scartol • Tok14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
See, about a year ago, when I first joined up with wikipedia, people actually got reviews over at GA. :) Now they have an inhuman backlog, though. Also, going to GAC forces me to slow down on the way to FAC and meticulously rework the prose. Awadewit | talk16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"often called the "father of the book trade" in England" – called that in England, or father of the English book trade?
Now reads: "father of the book trade" but I don't know if I like that formulation - it looks like a huge editorial comment. I think another wording is needed. Awadewit | talk22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"issued primarily religious works" - did he issue works that were mostly religious in nature, or did he mostly issue works that were religious? (I'm not saying this needs to be changed, just probing for possible ambiguities.)
He issued more religious works than any other kind of work. I think this is clear from context, but let me know if we should reword. Awadewit | talk22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"particularly at his famous weekly dinners (the regulars subsequently became known as the "Johnson Circle")." – is there a nicer way to append the sentence in parentheses? "(the regular attendants of which later became known as" – also, I would like "later" better than "subsequently", since there is no clearly defined point in time for the "subsequent" to attach to.
Now reads: He fostered the open discussion of new ideas, particularly at his famous weekly dinners, the regular attendees of which later became known as the "Johnson Circle".
"supporters of the French revolution and" – probably a comma after "revolution"?
"Religious Dissent marked Johnson" – is this precisely what you want to say? The subsequent statements sounds like "J grew up in a climate of Religious Dissent" or similar.
I know the meaning, and I know it's usually italicized when added to ordinary, non-italic text, so I was wondering whether it needed to be non-italic when added to text that is, itself, in italics. Admittedly a minor point. --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"opened his own business; however" – why "however"? In what sense does the account of him moving shop limit the validity of the statement that he opened his own business?
I found it hard to formulate this sentence - moving his business made it hard for him to establish himself. One isn't a stable businessman if one is moving about so much. :) Awadewit | talk22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
He wasn't moving to a better location as far as I know - when he was, we try to say so: "By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." Awadewit | talk21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, some additional insertion (for instance "however, he found it hard to establish himself, moving ..." would make it clearer, I think. --Markus Poessel (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Now reads: Upon completing his apprenticeship in 1761, Johnson opened his own business; however, he struggled to establish himself, moving his shop times within one year.Awadewit | talk18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"However, as a publisher Johnson did not just sell books." – not quite what it is meant to be. Probably should be something like "However, it should be noted that, in Johnson's time, the role of a publisher included much more than just selling books" or similar (I don't like the "role" in my sentence, but you can see what I mean).
Now reads: As a publisher Johnson did more than sell books. (It is wordy to add phrases such as "it should be noted that"). Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to this, I guess that no publisher just sells books – after all, per definition they arrange for the editing, the printing, and so on, as well. Hm. How about something along the lines However, Johnson did more than just tend to the logistics of publication. He also...? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
congers: briefly explain in the text. Readers should be able to understand this article without clicking on wikilinks.
"which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms" - This is not enough? (By the way, I think wikilinks are one of the best things about wikipedia - I don't think that everything can possibly be explained inside a single article. For example, I can't explain the French revolution in this article. The balance is tricky, I admit, but the fact that readers can so easily be taken to further explanations is one of the best parts of the online experience, in my opinion.) Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's enough, since the reader doesn't automatically know that the "which spread" is the main reason for forming a conger, not just some additional side effect you mention here. "congers, that is, special syndicates set up to spread the risk of publishing..." might be better. I think a WP article should be written in a way that it is readable without the average curious reader feeling compelled to follow any wikilink. That reader has heard about the French Revolution, but not necessarily about congers. --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Now reads: other publishers began including him in congers, a syndicate which spread the risk of publishing a costly or inflammatory book among several firms. Awadewit | talk21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Johnson formed two friendships that shaped the rest of his life." – as they probably didn't immediately shape the rest of his life: "two friendships that were to shape the rest of his life"?
"Fuseli was Johnson's closest friend until his death." – the only concrete date given is the beginning of the friendship, so perhaps "was to remain J.'s closest friend" would be better?
"This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism, as well as other forms of religious and political dissent." – help me out on this: wasn't Baptist faith a form of dissent, too? In which case this sentence appears to build too much of a contrast (Baptism here, dissent there).
Not worth going into. Now reads: This friendship led Johnson to discard the Baptist faith of his youth and adopt Unitarianism as well as pursue forms of political dissent.Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"Priestley, in turn, trusted Johnson enough to handle the logistics of his induction into the Royal Society." – what logistics were those? It would be great if this could be re-written in a way that the average reader immediately understand why this was a sign of trust.
I don't know, unfortunately. Priestley just let Johnson handle a lot of his correspondence and a couple of the biographers made a bit of a deal out of him letting Johnson handle this particular element of it - probably because becoming a member of the Royal Society was such an honor and it meant a lot to Priestley. Nothing very interesting, there, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. We should trust the sources, but in cases like this, where the source apparently doesn't give us sufficient information for at least a plausibility check how the interpretation came about, we should be careful. Which, here, could mean just attributing the interpretation explicitly – including it as a quote. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't think this is important enough to quote. The notes are available for the reader, if they want to check them. Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events" – how come we're talking about events now? What events?
The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies. - I think the whole sentence makes it clearer - the John Wilkes election fiasco and the beginning of the American revolution. It is important to make sure that readers know what is going on at each point in history, I think, and what the person's relation to it is. In this case, it is even more important, since Johnson becomes more active politically later. Awadewit | talk02:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How about "in any of the events taking place"? I just don't think (small point, admittedly) that the reader can be expected to know that the "growing radicalism" was tied to specific events. It could have been a trend in publishing, in the way laws were introduced in parliament, etc. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're asking for a redundancy to be inserted - events always "take place". We don't need to tell readers that. I think that we can safely say that readers will assume that the events are the ones listed and will tie "events" to "radicalism". Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite redundancy, but possibly not the best way of putting this. The proper way of doing this would be to say that it was a time of radicalism, indicate that this radicalism can be tied to specific events, and then take J didn't take part in those events. "The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, crystallizing in events such as the John Wilkes election fiasco and <please insert another event here>. Although Johnson did not actively participate..." --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I am really quite comfortable with this sentence as it stands. I think it is quite clear; it defines the growing radicalism through the events that Johnson didn't participate in but published works about, a fair and accurate statement: The late 1760s were a time of growing radicalism in Britain, and although Johnson did not actively participate in any of the events, he facilitated the speech of those who did, by publishing works on the disputed election of John Wilkes and the agitation in the American colonies.Awadewit | talk06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"By August 1770, just seven months after fire had destroyed his shop and goods, Johnson had reestablished himself at 72 St. Paul's Churchyard—the largest store on a street of booksellers—where he remained for the rest of his life." – again, somehow "where he would remain" sounds better to my ear, may be because it fits better with the preceding tenses.
"Starting in the 1770s, Johnson published fewer generalized religious tracts" – "generalized"? From what? "Fewer tracts on the subject of religion in general"?
Changed to: Johnson published more specifically Unitarian works, as well as texts advocating religious toleration; he also became personally involved in the Unitarian cause.Awadewit | talk03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"Johnson actively participated in efforts to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts" – I keep trying to think of a way you can "participate in efforts" other than "actively". But may be it's just me.
I suppose I was just trying to emphasize that he did more than publish works, but I see your point. Removed "actively". Awadewit | talk03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"Although Johnson became known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews." – I know what you mean, but it sounds a bit off. The "Although" refers only to the fact that most people know him as a publisher of X (while he was also a publisher of Y), but as it is written, it sounds as if being known for publishing X would somehow restrict the publishing of Y. Either "it is a fact that he also" or something about his other activities being less well-known?
Now in the present tense: Although Johnson is known for publishing Unitarian works, particularly those of Priestley, he also published the works of other Dissenters, Anglicans, and Jews.Awadewit | talk03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"a political risk as the American colonies were in rebellion" – an additional "by that time" would be good, seeing that we're tracing developments starting at a time before the revolution.
"because Dr. James's Fever Powder was quite popular and his fellow bookseller John Newbery made his fortune from it." – "had made his fortune", probably. And how? Did the bookseller sell medicine, as well? Had he sold books about it? A brief explanation would be welcome.
Changed to "had made his fortune from selling it". I don't want to go into a big tangent here on Newbery's fortune. I plan on writing the Newbery article someday - all will be explained in more detail there. (Hopefully the reader remembers the quote about publishers selling medicines in particular from earlier in the article!) Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Johnson also contributed significantly to the development of children's literature in the eighteenth century, a genre that was just then emerging." – reads a bit strange. The genre is "children's literature in the eighteenth century"? Or "children's literature"? May be this should be two sentences. Or a different construction ("the newly emerging genre of...").
"become the center of a radical and stimulating intellectual milieu" – can something become the "center" of a "milieu"? Or is that a mildly mixed metaphor (literally, I suppose a "milieu" is itself the "center of the place")?
Oh, it can't? Hm. The definition is just "the physical or social setting in which something occurs or develops", so I think there can be a center. I've always had the feeling that "milieu" is pretty diffuse. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know – but in cases like this, where the exact attributes of some vague term like milieu are not universally known (as I conclude from our small sample-of-two), one should probably refrain from using the term
Well, the exact attributes of all abstract words in historical and literary articles are not universally known. Definitions are notoriously tricky things in language. This one doesn't strike me as very odd. I asked a few other people and they didn't think this was a strange formulation, but they were literary types like myself. Let's see if it gives anyone else pause. Awadewit | talk18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"he usually had only one assistant and never hired an apprentice" – were apprentices "hired" at that time? Weren't they indentured or something? "never took on an apprentice" probably covers everything.
"Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk" – isn't that the norm rather than the exception, publishers publishing at their own risk? I assume that this is not what you intend to stress here; it's more about the risk, in this case, being larger than usual, right?
Many times in the eighteenth century, authors published at their own risk (Jane Austen did this, for example). In this case, Johnson took the risk (which was also riskier for him) - both meanings are intended. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. That is an important information that should definitely be in there for the non-18th-century-savvy reader. How about "at his own risk; a remarkable step in an age where most authors published at their own risk" or similar (it can certainly be put more elegantly). -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Now reads: Johnson published Cowper's Poems (1782) and The Task (1784) at his own risk (a generous action at a time when most authors published at their own risk), and was rewarded with handsome sales of both volumes.Awadewit | talk
"where they would be sure to see his wares and this helped establish him" – comma after wares?
"James Edward Smith, "the botanist who brought the Linnaean system to England"." – any reason why this should be a direct quotation? To me, that's suspiciously close to overdoing it.
I just couldn't think of another wording at the time; I was also worried if I just replaced the verb, it would still be plagiarizing in spirit. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Is credited with bringing the Linnaean system? Introduced the Linnaean system? Remembered for bringing the Linnaean system? Whose claim to fame is to have brought the Linnaean system? Was instrumental in bringing the Linnaean system? Was responsible for bringing/introducing? --Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
But that's just it - simply replacing the verb can still be considered plagiarism. I'm just changing one or two words. Until the entire phrase can be changed, the quotation remains. Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd guess that, for small sentences like this, you cannot define plagiarism that strictly. "credited with introducing the Linnaean system of taxonomy to English scholars"? I just think that making it a quotation introduces an emphasis that is confusing. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm going to have to be a stickler about this. Plagiarism in the humanities is taken quite seriously and I cannot afford to write anything that has even the whiff of plagiarism about it nor am I interested in doing so. Awadewit | talk06:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"book on lithotomy was illustrated by William Blake as well" – comma before "as well". Assuming that whoever wrote this has run out of commas, here's a free sample: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
"notions of the element and the compound" – I'm a bit bothered by the definite article (but again, may be that's just me). "of an element and of a compound"?
Can you leave out the articles altogether? The notions of element and compound? I'm not sure about how to handle this, but "the" sounds off somehow. --Markus Poessel (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"By bringing inventive, thoughtful people together, he "stood at the very heart of British intellectual life" for over twenty years." – this sounds, once more, odd. How can you stand by bringing people together? I think this links one too directly to the other. Especially since the first is true of many people, the last of very few.
I don't really sense the oddness - he's not "standing by" - he's "standing" metaphorically (also meaning "representing"). I also don't think very many people bring together "circles" like Johnson did. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit uneasiness about bringing metaphors too close together. The very heart is metaphoric, and he's standing metaphorically. How about "secured for himself a position at the very heart of"? I won't push this, it was just something that struck me as slightly oddish. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
How did he do this "securing"? That has whole different connotations for me and in an eighteenth-century context, it sounds like he influenced people to get his position, which he didn't exactly. One usually "secures" positions at court or employment, if you see what I mean. Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"and is believed to have written some 200 articles for his periodical, the Analytical Review" – why the uncertainty? Few copies survive? Articles written under an assumed name, or anonymously?
Written under initials - we don't know for sure. This is explained in the Analytical Review article, where the details of contributions to that journal are explained in much greater detail. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Johnson offered Wollstonecraft work as a translator, prompting her to learn French and German." – what's the order here? Did he offer her work despite her not knowing any foreign languages? That sounds a bit odd. Or did he offer her work for some languages she already knew, encouraging her later to widen her linguistic range?
"Johnson encouraged Wollstonecraft to work as a translator, prompting her"? Not exactly the same (doesn't say that he actually offered her concrete projects – I didn't want to repeat "work"), but, in my view, less confusing. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
He did offer her translation projects, though, so that has to made clear. How about: Johnson provided Wollstonecraft with translation opportunities, prompting her to learn French and German.Awadewit | talk05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
"Society for Constitutional Information" – please add a half-sentence explanations. Readers shouldn't have to click.
Added "which was attempting to reform Parliament". I usually only add these when I think they will be helpful. I'm not sure this one explains anything. Sometimes people just have to read more if they really want to know, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"his willingness to publish works that reflected the "challenging new historicist versions of the scriptures"" – is "reflected" the right word here? Can works reflect a version?
It's a common word in literary criticism, but I'll change it as I don't think it is common for other people. New word: "expressed". Awadewit | talk20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"bestselling poetical works of Cowper and Darwin" – I think most readers will not remember the single earlier mention of Darwin, namely that this is Erasmus Darwin. Somehow, Darwin falls from the sky here, without introduction. I think this should change, including a more explicit statement that we're talking with nature-inspired poetry here. Cowper and his work are properly introduced in earlier parts of the article; why not Darwin?
Are you saying there should be more on Darwin and Johnson overall? One reason for the most extensive Cowper information is that Johnson and Cowper had more of a personal relationship than Darwin and Johnson. (I've added "Erasmus Darwin" to avoid the confusion.) Awadewit | talk20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"They were apparently close enough friends for Coleridge to leave his books at Johnson's shop when he toured Europe." – how does this indicate close friendship?
According to the sources it does. I suppose you have to think of how expensive books were at the time. They were not easy to replace. Johnson was like Coleridge's safety-deposit box. Awadewit | talk20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
"Johnson also asked that his portrait of Priestley be given "to an American College or Institution for promoting knowledge"." – so where did it end up?
What does the source say? Even adding "the whereabouts of which are, however, unknown" or similar would be better than just to leave it dangling. -Markus Poessel (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"one of the women writers Johnson promoted and assisted, who also thought of him as a brother and a father" – where does the "also" come from? What else are we told she thought? Or who else thought of J. as a brother and a father?
"this was expected at the time" – "this did not surprise his contemporaries" – or did they come to expect, which always carries a bit of its other meaning of claiming something as ones right, shoddy quality?
It was expected of ephemeral literature at the time, whether printed by Johnson or not. Changed to "this was expected by his contemporaries". Awadewit | talk20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached GA status and I would like to someday see it become a featured article. I'm a bit unsure as to what needs to be done to this artice before it can reach this status, and I was hoping that a peer review could help to improve the overall quality of the article.
I'll see if I can review the article to help improve it, though I don't have the time today. A few points, though: 1) Remove the YouTube video external links -- they are both potential copyright violations and inappropriately embedded in the article body. 2) Reduce the length of the Cast section to only the major roles. This is an encyclopedia, so we should not indiscriminately list every actor in the film. We have the the film's end credits and IMDb's electronic copy for that. 3) For critical reviews, can you specify more about what film critics liked or disliked about the film? I think that the reviews could elaborate more on the pros and cons rather than their general opinion, such as "well-paced story" or "badly developed characters". I've put the peer review on my watchlist, so feel free to respond (which will help remind me to review the content more closely). Hope you can make these changes! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the YouTube links from the Deleted Scenes subsection, but I'm tempted to remove the section entirely, seeing as it doesn't significantly contribute to the article and really only serves to take up space. What do you think? Also, I believe that the Council Members portion of the cast list could be removed, seeing as they're mostly non-notable actors who's only line in the film was to say the name of their character, but what are your views on the Cameos section? I personally find this section to be interesting (I certainly wouldn't have picked up on a lot of it on my own), but I can also see where it might need to be removed. I'll try to work on the critical reviews section as time permits, but I do have a few real world obligations to deal with at the moment (the term is coming to an end and quite a few papers are due), so it may be a bit before I'm really able to sit down and sift through them. Still, I'll see what I can do. —Mears man (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead and remove the Council members subsection, but I've left the Cameos part up for the moment until I hear what others thoughts on that are. —Mears man (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As suggested by the script, I went ahead and expanded the lead section to comply with the guidelines set by Misplaced Pages:Lead section. I tried my best to cover the remaining portions of the article in what I added, but would you mind taking a look at it to see if you have any suggestions for improvement? —Mears man (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Somebody posted a comment on the article's talk page, suggesting that the Cast section be removed, seeing as it's somewhat redundant. They argued that, because the actors are covered in the infobox, plot section, and pre-production and casting section, having a separate section to only list the actors and their roles seemed a bit unnecessary. While they do make a good point, it seems to me that most film articles include a cast section, so I'm still a bit unsure. Any thoughts or suggestions? Also, if the cast section were to be removed, would the cameos section be removed along with it, or is there another part of the article that that could fit in with? —Mears man (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, a straightforward Cast section does not add a whole lot to a film article. There are other sources that compile the entire cast, such as IMDb. My approach is to write real-world context about the cast in the film. I've done a "Casting" subsection under the "Production" subsection (see Fight Club (film)#Casting) and a "Cast" section in which there is prose and a list of bulleted entries that contain some real-world context for each character (see Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast). I consider it a more unique and encyclopedic approach. That's my $0.02. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through most of the reviews and tried to add more information about their specific likes/dislikes (I think there may have been one that I didn't expand on because I couldn't find much else worth mentioning). Any thoughts, suggestions? Did I add too much, not enough, or just the right amount? Was this the kind of stuff you were looking for? (Sorry about all the questions, I guess I'm just trying to get some feedback) —Mears man (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
After editing and editing and more editing of "The Carpenters", I feel that this is ready for another peer review. I'm pleased to say that "The Carpenters" looks very professional now, and thanks to the public, is very much better than the original product. Any constructive comments are appreciated! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There are several problems with non-free media in the article. I'll start tagging them with notices for work to be done. In brief, the fair use rationales don't explain why the audio samples are necessary and irreplaceable in this article per WP:NFCC#10c. A lot of non-free media also needs to be reduced in size. The free media could also be moved to commons. I know this is all very pedantic, but for FA we really need to organise our media properly. I'll try to review the text properly soon. Papa November (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Does Followmearound.com have permission to reprint myLaunchs articles? (ref 1) If not, the link should be removed (and be replaced with a magazine ref). I'm concerned at some of the quality of the sources as well. Who are myLaunch; are they a reliable source? CloudNine (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments More will be added as I think of them.
Remove all links to unlicensed reproductions of magazine articles on fan websites. That's infringing on copyright. Credit the sources just as if you were citing directly from the magazine.
This article is currently 70kb, making it the second-longest article under the scope of WikiProject Alternative Music. Try and make the prose of the article more concise. One suggestion is to remove the 'Solo work' section, as its tangential to the band itself. CloudNine (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't need the chart positions in the Discography section (especially when chart positions in only two countries are listed). That's what the main Radiohead discography article is for. All you need to list are the studio albums and release dates. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Here are some statistics to do with the page size, as the total can sometimes be misleading. Size (using User:Dr pda/prosesize.js) of this revision:
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment There's some excellent work in this article. Here's some points that will beat it into shape for an FA nomination:
The opening paragraphs should follow the guidelines at WP:LEAD (3 paragraphs, concise, accessible, vital information only).
The "In Rainbows" discbox section could be either completely removed or put into the album's article if it isn't already there. Similarly, it's probably best to keep release details out of the lead because knowing they plan to release a discbox doesn't really give somebody who doesn't know the band at all a vital piece of information on them.
The article is looooooong. Go through the entire article and try to reword any parts that are expressed in too many words. Try to make things leaner and more concise.
Actually, the current trend (with many alternative music articles at least) is to keep the Discography section as simple as possible, and then save the detail for the main discography article. (see Pearl Jam, Frank Black etc.) Adding a tabled discography to the article would not reduce its length. CloudNine (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get this article to Featured Article status. Thanks -- Biochemza, 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Colin
I'm a lay reader. There's clearly a lot of work gone into this and loads of detail. Here are some impressions.
I found the rotating DNA to be distracting when reading the lead. We all know what DNA looks like. This is just eye-candy.
Most of the uses of quotes in the lead should be replaced IMO. The "vaccines of the future" should be replaced with a simple statement of fact (i.e, they aren't in-use yet but may become the dominant form). The "third generation" is either an accepted fact or else probably doesn't belong in the lead. I don't know why "whole organism" or "genetically engineered" are in quotes.
The "ability to induce a wide range of immune response types" doesn't strike me as an "advantage over conventional vaccines".
The "third generation" sentence doesn't fit with rest of the paragraph.
The "conventional vaccines, however" sentence, while true, seems to be trying to make a point wrt DNA vaccines. In fact, the whole lead is too much like a sales pitch.
The "First generation" paragraph quickly enters expert-reader territory. The lead has to be accessible to all.
The "second generation" vaccines don't "overcome these drawbacks" as they have the same disadvantage as killed vaccines. The text doesn't really explain why these are better than killed vaccines. It isn't clear to me what the "third generation" are able to do in comparison to the immune responses you mention.
By the last paragraph, you've completely lost me. I don't understand any of the sentences.
The final sentence mentions a naming issue that you has was resolved in 1994. Old news. Not really important for the lead. This also implies that people have been researching these for over 10 years. That's a long time.
The smallpox vaccine kit image is not relevant to this article IMO.
The "Advantages and Disadvantages" table is an ugly way to start an article.
The "Current use" section should probably be moved to the lead. Let's not fool the reader into thinking this is a current form of vaccination.
I recommend you don't supply the URL parameter for journal articles where the article (not just the abstract) is not freely available online. Where one does link, my preference is not to bother with the "access date" since unlike most web-pages, journal articles don't change once they go to print. Also, you should supply a DOI or a PMID, which will aid anyone with subscribed journal access to read it.
I haven't read the rest in detail, only skimmed. This is a shame since it is probably a fascinating and exciting area of research. The technical level is more Nature than New Scientist. Misplaced Pages is for the general reader, and I fear that means you've got quite a challenging task to explain this in simpler terms. It will also mean that some esoteric material has to go.
I have recently created, copyedited and improved the article and believe that the article may be ready for WP:GAN. Before nominating the article for Good Article status, I have listed the article for a peer review. Please review the article thoroughly and inform me of any errors, typos, and guidelines I had not followed in the article.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:BOLD about that. It takes you more time to write the sentence of the whole suggestion down here, than it does to add a bracket in the article. Feedback04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You rely too much on one source wwe.com, it's made worse by the fact that it's a primary source as well it would help it's chances of becoming GA if you get more varied sources than you have right now.
I sourced everything with WWE.com, because nothing in the article was objective. The article is completely subjective, and mostly about feud-growths, and match results. How can any of this be sourced outside wwe.com? Feedback03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead reveals the result of the Cena/Umaga match but not the other matches - consistency please, either all results or no result in the lead.
I was told to only reveal the result of the main event in the lead. I personally don't like spoiling the result until the Event section, but that's what I was advised to do as other PPV articles. So, I am going to need more opinions on this particular point. Feedback03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Tenses, it switches between past and present tense in places you should go through it and check it for consistency.
The "Event" section contains a lot of very short paragraphs, ít doesn't look good - either expand the paragraphs or consider putting a couple of the low card matches in the same paragraph. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
DoneI have joined the promos and matches into the same paragraph, while joining the last two matches also together. Feedback03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have some comments:
Citations should not go in the middle of a sentence. Also, there are a couple of places where the citations are located before the punctuation. These should be moved behind the punctuation, including periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, etc.
If there is more than one citation for a sentence, they should be placed in numerical order. Also, there should not be a space between them or between the source and punctuation mark.
Most of the sources are from WWE.com, which isn't going to fly if you want the article to be a GA or FA. You need to find some non-primary sources to add to the article.
There is an internal link to WWE.com that should be removed. Websites should not be linked in the text.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but you might want to try and combine some of the paragraphs in both the Event and Aftermath sections. A paragraph that is two or three sentences long is a no-no.
Make sure the titles for SmackDown! and Raw are in italics. Pay-per-view names are not supposed to be in italics, but television shows are.
Done All mentions to the TV Show have been put in italics. The only one not italicized is the mention of Raw in the lead, which is about the brand.
You missed a couple, so I tried to go in and fix it. Check over one more time to make sure I didn't miss any that you missed. lol. Nikki31123:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, copyedit the article. There are a couple of instances where a word or punctuation mark is missing. For example, "Regardless these two losses, at the end of the night, Cena stood tall" should be "Regardless of these two losses, at the end of the night, Cena stood tall." Also, "Next, Kenny Dykstra made his way to the ring, mocking Ric Flair wearing one of Flair's common robes" should be "Next, Kenny Dykstra made his way to the ring, mocking Ric Flair by wearing one of Flair's common robes." Fix these two sentences (I would have done it, but then I wouldn't have examples to give) and check to make sure this doesn't happen elsewhere in the article.
Done
I know it is hard to copy-edit your own article since you've been looking at it for so long. I went in and fixed a lot of stuff you missed. The difference is here. Things to avoid 1) Don't start sentences with "and" or "however" 2) Avoid contractions such as "can't" or "doesn't" 3) You formatted some of the citations improperly. I fixed them. Make sure you look to see how I did it and understand the correct format 4) There were a few misspelled words
Back to the picture issue, there is a free-use picture of Flair in one of the robes that might be good to use here. A non-wrestling fan wouldn't know what one looked like.
Sorry that I forgot, but I've been so busy with other things. In case you missed where I said it above, I have copy-edited the article for you. The difference is here. It is in your best interest to look over the changes I made so you don't make the same mistakes in the future. The article is looking much better, by the way. Nikki31123:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because the editors feel at a loss for what else can be done to improve the quality of the article to get it up to GA status. Any input would be much appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach featured status. Since I started the article a couple of months ago, it has been expanded by a lot of people and become a topic of importance, owing to the current political crisis in Belgium. I think it will be particularly instructive to any reader to have a featured article available on Misplaced Pages on this topic.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Review - The article looks good, but there's still some major problems. The article's size looks okay, but needs waaay more citations, especially if there's going to be expansion. The other problem I came across was the prose; several sentences are very "clunky" and/or confusing. I'd suggest getting a copyeditor to go through the article and rewrite it. Several sentences are also too short and give a stop-start feeling to the article and the opening needs to be reworked significantly from its current state. Towards the centre of the article, it gets a bit listy. FAC goers don't really like bullet point lists, so turn it into workable prose. Finally, it's generally not a great idea to pictures before the text (IE, the first two pictures of the article are to the left). It might be wise to shuffle them around. I'd be glad to help, but I know practically nothing about the subject and as you may or may not know, I have another article which I've been prepping with another editor for a couple of months now, so I'll limit myself to commenting on the article rather than actually editing it. Drop me a note about my comments or if you've fixed any and I'll pop aroudn and see if anything else needs doing. The article's on the right track, but get out many more books and references, add their information and especially cite the article's text - 80-90% cited is reasonable, but I strive to find citations for 100% of the article. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I will inform you as soon as I've finished implementing your advice. I think this article will expand a little bit more, as I'm a novice on Belgian history and politics, and it may take a while before I can satisfy the requirement of the article being comprehensive to the topic. Thank you for responding so quickly, K a r n a (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
A very precise and topical article. While I have only given it a cursory look. my interest is piqued and I will return for a more in depth look. At first I thought the footnote section was a bit long and wordy but, realizing the linguistic dynamic of the region involved, it soon became exceptable. In fact, when I considered the potential readers the length made sense. Good luck!--Buster7 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been subject to terrible soapboxing issues, edit wars and personality conflicts. The original title was Sexual slavery in Angeles City, and it soapboxed heavily. With the cooperation of several (speaking loosely) impartial editors, it was moved toward encyclopedic quality, but never became "good". The original editor dropped off for a few months during an extended edit conflict with an opposing editor.
For a few months this article has been WP:OWNed by the opposing editor, who deleted much information deemed unflattering to the city of Angeles, including substantial sourced information, often contrary to Talk page consensus, typically for specious reasons that had already been disputed on the Talk page, ending in this version, which also had soapboxing issues. This editor was sufficiently aggravating as to drive away the impartial editors.
Two days ago, the original editor has returned, resulting in this version. Hopefully this is progress. We need some guidance before the edit warring resumes. Big issues will be:
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Javascript-review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
Per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 418 metres, use 418 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 418 metres.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon . is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to promote it to good article status. So far, the most obvious thing missing from this article is a picture, but I don't know of any good resources for free images of him. Other than that, I would like to know what improvements could be made overall to this article -- what parts should be expanded, re-worded, etc.
You mention that his mother sang back in the 1950s as a pre-act for some big names, and that she sometimes brought Collin and his brother onto the stage to sing harmonies. But Collin wasn't born until 1960, so how did that work?!
Any information about the family that's mentioned several times? How many kids? How long married and to whom? That sort of thing.
I think the WP:MOS discourages following a section header immediately with a subsection header, as you've done in Solo Career, where you've jumped immediately into the information about the albums. I'd suggest moving the first few sentences of the "In the beginning" subsection higher, and changing that subsection name to the name of his first album to match the next subsection. The same comment goes for the Mid Career section.
Sentences like the one saying he thought about giving up his music career for a factory job should be referenced. Where did he say that?
As for other information that would be good to include, some comments from mainstream reviewers about his style, albums, success, etc. would be appropriate.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, I fixed the info on the Sun Records artists (she sang in the 1950s, then became a solo artist in the 1960s). I haven't found much info on his family, or any mainstream reviewers at all, besides what's All Music Guide. It's so hard to find decent information on musical artists online, because you have to fight through a zillion lyrics/tabs sites, illegal download pages, All Music Guide copycats, and all that junk. Ten Pound Hammer • 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd try to find a print media interview if I were you. Is there a Country Music project on WP? Maybe someone there would have access to that... MeegsC | Talk10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of the article does not appear to be written in a neutral tone, paying special attention to the section titled "Advocacy" which appears to be a collection of links, whose content is not used throughout the article, and only purpose seems to be to attack the company. I'd like some outside views and opinions.
Also, I removed the advocacy links as they all seemed frivolous. I would also suggest either removing the self-published references, or finding better third-party references to replace them. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I looking to bring it up to good article status like its parent article, Burger King. I would like others suggestions on improving it, all are welcome as I really benefited from the suggestions made by other editors when I was improving Burger King
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the translation of the featured German article de:BDSM. It has been copy edited by User:Jeffpw.
The missing content from the older :en version was mostly integrated, additional references have been added.
Since the article's content has already passed 2 peer reviews on :de and was awarded the equivalents to Good article and FA on :de, I hope this review will help to move it to an higher level.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This article was recently reviewed and successfully listed as a Good Article. The GA reviewer said it was an enjoyable read, but could use some minor improvements in the area of copyediting. I'm looking to get some input from a fresh set of eyes as to how to best improve this article's quality status. Thanks,
Cirt (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will begin to address some of the points from the semi-auto Peer Review, and note them here below. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article. - Done - Lead is already sufficient. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one. - Done - This was a good suggestion, I added a free use image to the top of the article. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon . is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon. - Done - I went and looked through the whole article, but it looks like footnotes are already located after punctuation. Cirt (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
This article was recently reviewed and passed successfully as a WP:GA. The reviewer was even kind enough to suggest some helpful pointers on how to improve the article further, and I implemented them all save one - this Peer Review. I also added another source to a different book review since then, and will continue to do copyediting. Looking for suggestions from previously uninvolved editors to the article, on how to improve its quality status.
Thanks,
Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC).
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. "it has been", "apparently" - might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment). - Done - I did a check through the article, and the first instance "it has been", is backed up by a citation to the United States House of Representatives. The second instance "apparently", is part of a citation, it is part of a title of a book. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
Have found some more citations and expanded a bit on the overall story of Jiraishin, with an added section for a movie supposedly based on it.
Thanks,
Ominae (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My hope is to have the article ready for an FAC by mid December, and I think it is close. Either way, any comments and feedback are more than welcome. -- Scorpion03:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Seegoon
Here are my thoughts:
The lead
Why does the first sentence refer to "Simpsons" as opposed to "The Simpsons" - why is "the" not italicised and bolded?
"These segments usually involve the family" - could "the family" be linked to an appropriate article on the Simpson family themselves?
"Treehouse of Horror episodes are immensely difficult for the show's staff." - my initial reaction to this sentence was that it felt clunky. Maybe change it to "The writers regard Treehouse of Horror episodes as particularly difficult", or something similar.
I think "Monopoly" should be italicised, seeing as it's a featured article and italicises itself in said article. Also make sure to keep this consistent in the merchandising section.
Traditions
"The warning in the first THOH episode" - "THOH" should be italicised or removed - it's the only time this initialism is used in the entire article.
"Marge's warnings became a burden to write as the years went on. There was no warning for third and fourth Treehouse of Horrors, but it was revived for "Treehouse of Horror V". After that, Marge's warnings were permanently dropped and the writers didn't make any attempts at reviving them." - this is sluggish.
"The Tombstone gags were easy to write in the first episode, but like Marge's warnings, they eventually got harder and harder to write, so they were abandoned." - this has been written as though you are one of the writers of the shows. Bear in mind the perspective of the reader.
"Another part of the reason the tombstones were dropped was because" - this seems to go on a little longer than really necessary.
"There were no wraparounds for "Treehouse of Horror VI" because they had been cut to make more time for the segments, and for "Treehouse of Horror VII", the writers just did not bother." - careful with your tone here, you sound a tad apathetic.
"Former executive producer Sam Simon left the show during the fourth season and ever since has been credited in the shows opening as "Sam 'Sayanora' Simon"." - I think it might be worth explaining why; not everyone will know what this translates as.
"The scary names became such a burden to write that they were cut for "Treehouse of Horror XII" and "Treehouse of Horror XIII", but there were many complaints on the internet and Jean realized that the fans quite liked them, so the scary names returned." - again, casual tone from a skewed perspective.
Production
"Do a ctrl+f and search for "treehouse of horror" and "the simpsons". Every time you come across one, ensure they're italicised. I'd expand this rule to even references.
"The Treehouse of Horror episodes are difficult to write and hard to animate" - similar to what I said in the first section, consider your perspective.
Reception
"In 2006 IGN.com published a list of the top ten Treehouse of Horror segments, and they placed "The Shinning" from "Treehouse of Horror V" at the top, saying it was "not only a standout installment of the annual Halloween episode, but of The Simpsons, period."." - first, you don't need a full stop before/after the quotation mark at the end (keep it consistent throughout) and secondly, this needs citation.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The first detective fiction story, written by Edgar Allan Poe. I'm considering putting this up for good article review soon. If someone could check the writing in particular, that would be helpful. Also feel free to help me trim down list of Adaptations and Allusions from other works. The article is relatively short; please advise if I should expand on lead and/or plot summary. Thanks in advance! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts:
Maybe the first mention of "rationcination" should be linked to Wiktionary, seeing as it's a terrifying word. It also needs citation as coming straight from the horse's mouth.
Reference 6 should be following punctuation.
Swedish Death Metal isn't the tidiest wikilink ever. I think it's Gothenburg metal or something like that. Throughout that section, albums should be italicised and song titles put in quotes.
Take a look at the external links section of The Mystery of the Yellow Room - the Wikisource link it prettier, and it includes a link to Project Gutenberg. I'd advise you do the same.
If there's a way to have the 'Works of Edgar Allan Poe' hidden by default, I'd go for it, 'cos it's fricken' huge.
Fair enough, it certainly helps! I hadn't realized that a typical Wikisource box wasn't on there, nor did I realize I hadn't set up a Wiktionary link for "ratiocination" (I had just done it for C. Auguste Dupin). I haven't found a relevant Project Gutenberg link, possibly because this was never part of a book during Poe's lifetime. I'm also not going to edit the template; I don't think the way it displays should be considered in a GA or FA review... and, if it is, "The Raven" passed FA with the same template and no comments about it. And I'm hesitant to put any serious work into the References/Allusions from other works section because... well, because I just don't care for it. I'd rather just cut it all entirely. Really, who cares that some "Swedish Death Metal" group referenced "The Murders in the Rue Morgue"? What are your thoughts (or anyone's) on deleting the whole section? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments from Awadewit
A wonderful story - I took time to reread it. I'm still thinking about the organization of this article. Could you explain why you chose to order them as you did? It might help me. For example, I am unsure whether "publication history" should be so late in the article. I would also turn the "Adaptation" section into prose rather than using a list - such lists are generally discouraged. Is the "Allusions" section really necessary? Could these allusions be included in Edgar Allan Poe in popular culture instead?
My biggest concern, however, is the research. I am not sure that this article adequately represents what has been written on the matter by literary scholars. For example, when I put "murders in the rue morgue" into the MLA database, I got 71 hits. There seemed to be many helpful articles and books. I haven't begun to look through "edgar allan poe" yet. Doing more reading will allow you to expand the "Analysis" section, for example. Awadewit | talk20:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I'll be able to respond more fully after my holiday break. Not sure what MLA database has on the story; I'm only using my library of books on Poe right now. As far as section ordering, I usually follow what's suggested by WikiProject Novels... though I usually do it from memory. I'll get back to this in a few days but thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest devising your own sections - let the research guide you. Editors tend to adhere to the WikiProject guidelines too rigidly. Each article should be custom-designed to convey the information on that topic efficiently and eloquently. Awadewit | talk04:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've completely removed the "Allusions/references from other works"... it seemed fairly useless to this article. As far as section headings and organization, I don't feel I'm blindly following a Project... I just happen to agree with it. For one, I sorta like the "Publication history" so low in the article; it seems more important to get into discussing the "Analysis" sooner rather than talking about how it was randomly republished with "The Man That Was Used Up." Other than that, what are you suggesting for organizing these sections? I think, maybe, "Inspiration" could be a subsection under "Analysis"... what do you think? Also, what research have you noticed which is missing? I've stuck with most of the main respected names in Poe studies, with the exception of Arthur Hobson Quinn (haven't gotten a hold of him yet) but if you give me a direction from what you've read I'm sure I can find it. I tend to use ink and paper sources rather than online, so that might be slowing me down. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering what logic you followed in setting up the article. I might do something like this:
Plot summary
Themes and style
Genre
Inspiration
Publication and reception
Adaptation
Genre could even come right after "Plot summary" - obviously the discussion of the detective story is one of the most important topics in this article. It needs to be addressed with much care and with much fanfare. :) Looking at the material you have on the detective story, it seemed difficult to know where exactly to place it all. I feel that the organization of this article is tricky. Awadewit | talk05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The MLA database has quite a bit on this story (as you know it is one of Poe's most famous and most important). I haven't read all of that material, but you should at least take a look at it to see what is there. You need to determine what the "scholarly consensus" is on the story. (Also, the MLA database points mostly to ink-and-paper sources, as you say. Literary critics haven't gotten around to publishing much online, yet. Alas.) By the way, how did you figure out who the major Poe scholars are? I'm always curious how people do this. It's easy for me to figure out who the major scholars are in a field because I can just ask a professor or fellow graduate stduent, if I don't already know myself. Awadewit | talk05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(Undent) I'm not sure I agree with most of your suggestions for section headings, to be honest (and no offense meant). I'm wondering if anyone else out there is reading this who would like to tune in. I'd prefer keeping all the articles on Poe stories as standard as possible for easy navigation between them. But, that's all I know. As far as who the major Poe scholars are, well, I've read a lot and have been a Poe scholar myself for years. I also work with Poe scholars and, as dorky as we are, we all chat and drop names. Certainly, when you're within a certain field, you know the relevant names! I guess with me, I couldn't tell you about known scholars of Melville, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Austen, or whoever... but I know Poe! Again, I'll look more into this stuff and your suggestions when I'm back from vacation. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I will politely disagree with you on the standardization. Being a scholar yourself, you ought to recognize how impossible such a dream is. :) For example, "The Murders in the Rue Morgue" initiated a genre, but other stories did not. To me, that means the article should foreground a discussion a genre in a way that other articles on Poe stories would not. I'm really not in favor of standardization for the sake of standardization (I was just saying this over that WikiProject Shakespeare, too - they wanted to have all of Shakespeare's articles look the same - the comedies, the histories, the tragedies). I think that standardization only leads us so far and being bound by it restricts articles.
I'm glad to hear that we have a Poe scholar working on the article. Finding appropriate research can be the most difficult part of doing these articles. (I apologize for explaining the MLA database.) However, it does still strike me as odd that there are so few sources in this article and is the best Poe scholarship really published in the Cambridge Companion or Bloom's book? Usually Bloom's books are of poor quality.
By the way, I'm a bit confused by your statement that you have been a "Poe scholar for years". Your userpage says you received a BA in American literature and that you are a graduate student in publishing. Are you a Poe scholar or a grad student in publishing? or both? or a bastard hybrid? :) Awadewit | talk15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Never said I was interested in standardizing for the sake of standardizing... I just so happen to think that the current set-up works just fine and is not confusing at all (again, no offense is meant here and I hope I'm not being argumentative!). You make a good point about the creation of a new genre, but I think the "Literary significance and impact" section does the job just fine - a fuller discussion of the genre and its history can be in the detective fiction article. I wonder if there's a similar article to compare this with... And, certainly, Bloom isn't much-respected, but he only compiled this particular book of essays; he didn't write them. I wouldn't worry about publications as much as scholars anyway. Again, Hobson Quinn's research will be forthcoming, and (hopefully) J. Gerald Kennedy as well. As for my own background, literature is a part of publishing, so not sure where you're confused. I also didn't mean to suggest I was a full-time professional Poe scholar (not sure how I'd make enough money from that, but it sounds like fun!)... and graduate school only involves a few hours of my week; I do much more than attend a couple classes. Really, your confusion about a few simple userboxes confuses me. But, I digress... As for this article, I agree it could use more sources; it is definitely in its early stages (I hope you didn't think I was done with it already!). I'll keep building on it as resources are found or dug up. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think standardization for the sake of "navigation" is really any different than "for the sake of standardization", though. However, I have an open mind and am willing to hear your reasoning.
One of the reasons that I suggested renaming "Literary significance and impact" to "Genre" was because it focuses almost exclusively on a discussion of genre, therefore I feel such a title would be more descriptive and would emphasize the invention of the genre to the reader.
I know Bloom only compiled, but it is precisely his compilations that aren't respected. His single-authored scholarly books such as The Anxiety of Influence are respected. Questions have been raised about how he chose the essays for those compilations.
By the way, just for future reference, it might be best not to refer to yourself as a "Poe scholar" unless you say "amateur Poe scholar". To someone like myself, who is a graduate student in English literature, "Poe scholar" indicates someone in academia who spends at least part of their career studying Poe.
Quick comment... not sure why a peer review became a discussion of my background, but I'll just say that "amateur Poe scholar" is not appropriate in my case. I'm just not particularly forthcoming with the details... Anyway, the only reasoning I can provide for the section headings and organization is that it seems to work. I haven't really been convinced otherwise. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because, this is one of the greatest hard rock albums ever recorded by one of the greatest hard rock bands of all time, it is a Diamond album according to the RIAA. This article deserves to be FA.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Article on Edgar Allan Poe's very odd essay Eureka: A Prose Poem. Looking to see if it seems "complete" or if something is lacking. I'm also a bit concerned that the flow of the article isn't clear or logical. I may put this up for GA review after this PR, so any suggestions are helpful and welcome! Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Jashiin
I'm sorry, but I think the article is currently far from GA status. Its a fascinating topic (and its great of you to pick it up!) and the article is very interesting to read, but many kinds of problems are present. Here are some points that might be helpful:
First of all, some work on the lead is needed: references (there's just one, and most things there need references) and wikification (German, American, 1848, naturalist, etc.).
Wikification throughout the article is also required, ie. Romantic (in Influence and significance), crescendo, various dates, etc.
Most titles should be italicized, not put in quotation marks; ie. Ligeia instead of "Ligeia", An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe instead of "An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe", etc. See WP:MOS#Italics.
A typo? - "non-fiction" in the lead vs. "nonfiction" in the Overview section.
It may have to do, at least partly, with my own likes and dislikes, but I think the major problem of the article is that much work on the text is needed to make the prose flow more naturally (and you did say you're concerned about that). For instance, in the "Overview" section the sentence "It is Poe's attempt at explaining the universe.." really belongs into the second paragraph, not the first. Because the first one deals with technical details, dates, etc., the second deals with the content of the work. Grouping paragraphs like that (ie. by topic) sometimes pays off. Or consider the "Critical reception" section, which has two paragraphs, one of them barely over one line long - it'd read much better and look much more logical if there were either two large paragraphs (if you can find more positive reviews, or break the first paragraph a little bit earlier - maybe at "Even though.."), or if you somehow incorporated the positive review information into the first paragraph and leave the section at one paragraph. Still another technique that might help is using various figures of speech to make the text more natural, ie. (in the same section), instead of "Some critics, however, respond favorably to Eureka. French writer Paul Valéry praised it..", consider something like "Some critics, however, respond favorably to Eureka. One notable example/For instance French writer Paul Valéry praised it...", etc. - just don't overdo it.
At several points the sentences lose their subject, so to speak. Two examples:
In the lead: "Adapted from a lecture he had presented, in Eureka Poe describes his intuitive conception of the nature of the universe" - sounds like Poe is adapted from a lecture. A better way to say the same thing: "Adapted from a lecture, Eureka describes Poe's intuitive.."
In Analysis: "Like his theories on a good short story, he believes the universe is a self-contained..." - sounds like the theories believe this. A better way to say this: "In accordance with his theories on what constitutes a good short story, Poe believes.."
Etc.
Since the work is in public domain now, perhaps one or two large quotes (those that go under the "blockquote" thing) could be used, instead of numerous bits and pieces quoted inside the text. It'd make the article look better, facilitate reading and provide the reader with some actual examples from the text (rather than just short bits). To facilitate reading even further, perhaps making a list of things Poe suggests would work nicer (in the Overview section, second paragraph), like a summary of the most important ideas Poe discusses.
An image (of the cover of the first edition, for example, or of a newspaper page with an unfavorable review, or of a poster announcing the lecture) would spice things up a bit, if its available anywhere.
Oh and, when was the actual essay written (ie. when exactly in 1848)? The article doesn't say anything about that.
Hope this helps! (this is my first review :) Good luck with this and other Poe-related articles - I noticed you're working on those. Jashiin (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't have time for a full response but, quickly, about italics... the manual of style on Misplaced Pages (and, really, anywhere that uses the English language) does require that short stories go in quotation marks, not italics. So, "Ligeia" et al will stay just like that. :) I'm also worried about over-wikifying, which is a criticism I seem to see the most on PR, GA review and FA reviews that I've been through. I'm also not sure about adding significantly long quotes... Most of Eureka is relatively incoherent, so the short quotes seem more helpful. I'm glad you agree that the article doesn't have such a great flow... I'll see what I can do about that. Anyway, thanks for giving this such an in-depth review; it is greatly appreciated! I'll be back after the holiday, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, never had any experience with short stories, my bad! Sorry! As for over-wikifying, I don't think a few extra links would hurt, especially with things like "Romantic". Finally, its your choice whether to include one or two long quotes from the text: I just thought they might give the reader a better understanding of the style and content of the essay, plus, in my eyes having lots of small bits of quotations sort of clutters up the text. Jashiin (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think I get what you're saying about short quotes cluttering things up a bit. I'll put some thought into it and see what I can do! I'll go through again and see what additional wikilinks I can throw in. Thanks again for the tips! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightdreary (talk • contribs) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just finished a revision based on feedback from a failed GA review. I would like to know if these problems have be remedied and find out what other issues remain. I know that some of the grammar is still weak but I've been looking at this article for so long that I need some fresh insights.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Blabbermouth.net reviewer Done Kaye commented "with little of the complexity of Mudvayne or angularity of Nothingface and much more of the full-on, pedal-to-the-metal style of Vinnie Paul's previous work", however, he said the songs "Star" and "Thank You" border on musical cliché." - Split into two sentences.LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"A DVD titled Below the Belt was released on November 13, 2007, and featured performance footage from the making of the album, first studio sessions, coverage of the band's world tour, and personal interviews." - Has there been any critical reception for this DVD? IGN maybe? LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing on IGN and i don't see any professional reviews., yet
"Paul felt two guitarists...", "passing through 30 cities..." - this should be consistent. It should be either "two" and "thirty", or "2" and "30".LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"However, Ruhlman believes Hellyeah is not a notable variations from members previous bands." - Variations? A band is classed as one entity, so is therefore a variation (ie. singular). LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get a comprehensive list of faults and areas needing improvement or revision before I go making major changes. I'd rather not rewrite the article from scratch or make major changes without a feedback from others. I'd like to get these changes made and this article nominated for FA status. I know it needs more sources cited, but what else can be improved?
The best way to find out what is missing from the article is to do research, research, research. Read a lot about Michelangelo - become a mini-expert yourself. Then you'll have a good idea about how to reshape the article and what elements of his life should be emphasized and de-emphasized. Hard work, but ultimately very rewarding. Awadewit | talk03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well spoken (or typed, I suppose). I am actually reading a couple books on his life right now. My biggest concern is that I can't possibly read every book about him and it seems that the number of citable sources is more important than the information cited. Can there be a Featured Article with well-cited facts from a select few sources? -- VegitaU (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is true that you cannot read everything published on Michelangelo - I expect it would fill a small building. :) The most important thing is to discover early on who are the most reputable scholars and which are the most reliable biographies - what is the "standard" biography of Michelangelo? One way to do this is to ask scholars, if you have access to them. Another, more tedious way and the more usual way, is to start looking through the bibliographies of reliable books on Michelangelo (those published by academic presses, for example) for which authors and books are referenced the most. That list will give you a place to start. What are you reading right now? I would expect that you would have to read books on Italian Renaissance painting and sculpture as well as on Michelangelo himself, if you haven't already.
I think that there can be featured articles that use a few, select sources, but I think that the best featured articles are those that attempt to draw on a wider variety. See William Shakespeare, for example. I and another user have undertaken the monstrous project of rewriting the Jane Austen page. This is what our bibliography looks like right now. Michelangelo is a very big topic - do you have someone to work with? lots of free time? reserves of patience? One or all of these is probably a necessity. :) I'm really happy to see someone is tackling this article - I love Italian Renaissance art. I might be able to offer a few recommendations for what to read, if you want - I did take a series of classes on the topic as an undergraduate, for whatever that is worth. Awadewit | talk04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make this a Feautred Article, yet I know I have a ways to go with it yet. Any help is appreciated.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Wizardman, you've got your wish. :) I read the whole article. Its rating as a Good Article is well-earned. I learned some things about Nathan that I didn't know from just reading the baseball pages in the Boston Globe or New York Times. I especially enjoyed the trivia that he replaced Barry Bonds on the Giants roster. In all seriousness, there's no serious flaw with the article. It's not missing any information that needs to be there. The only issue I might have is that it's a little more prosaic and boring than your typical featured article. If you could track down one of those Sunday-morning type long interviews to shine a light onto this guy's personality, that might make for a more interesting reading experience. Otherwise, the best way to evaluate its readiness for FA is to try FA and see why people say no. Oh, and for guidance, you can look at Lee Smith (baseball player), which is featured. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at WP:CITE and improve the references - each should give the source, publication date, and author. (by Jimmy The Greek, Sports Illustrated, May 1996.)
wikilink Division III to explain it to people who don't know why it's a big deal that "only div iii colleges showed interest"
Similarly wikilink, rephrase, or explain (probably wikilink, because that allows readers who don't know to look it up, while doesn't get in the way of readers who do know): Academic All-American, Bellingham Giants, what it means to have your number retired, shutout inning, major-league decision, reliever, closer, American League Co-Player of the Week, Major League Baseball Delivery Man of the Month, MVP, ERA, and similar baseball jargon
"This transition came with marriage as well" - eww. You're implying his marriage was strongly tied to his promotion; either back that up with a source that specifically says that, or rephrase. In fact, I'd break the family life into a separate section, unless, again you can show that his family life is strongly tied to his career. "With the end of the first season came the birth of his first son, Cole," ... eww. I can just imagine it now: "And you, son, came at the end of my first season. I value you just almost as much as that third trophy on the left there - don't get smudges on it!"
Give some text feedback: words rather than just numbers. What do sports writers say about him? What makes him impressive besides just stats? Does he throw fastballs, curves, sliders, spitters? Does he know when to walk, when to try for strikeout? Is he particularly good at shutting down power hitters, or does he tend to serve them up homers occasionally? You've got some terms there that could use more verbiage - what makes him a "saves leader", a "delivery man"? Is he consistent, erratic, flamboyant, conservative, reliable? What does he do outside the game, does he have any interests in activism, politics, charities, hobbies? --AnonEMouse16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I am renominating this article because it has been totally rewritten since its last pear review and has almost no resemblance to the earlier version. It appears to be well written and of good quality. Zginder (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The main flaws of the article is its unbalance and very narrow geographical scope. As far as I know, SAT is taken all over the world, and is accepted by a large number of universities outside US. This fact should be taken into account in the article, and at least mentioned in the lead. Also should be mentioned how SAT dates might differ in Muslim countries, how the results compare internationally... CG (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The biases section is incredibly small and leaves something to be desired. Particularly for a test as important as the SAT, which has been so heavily criticized for its biases, this needs to be addressed in much more detail. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Lead "The club was formed in 1922,...", first main para "York City Football Club was first founded in 1908..." - confusing as the lead says "The history of York City F.C. covers the years from the club's formation to the present day." - needs to be consistent.
"...election to the Football League was won." - I don't want to come over all anti-passive voice but I'd prefer "...when they won election to the Football League." Similar with "Crewe Alexandra were beaten" - "they beat Crewe Alexandra"...
"The club currently remains this division, but made the play-offs in the 2006–07 season." - sort of the wrong way round. They remain in the division because they failed in the play-offs...
"York played their first game at Fulfordgate..." - so presumably the game against Notts County was away? So emphasise either that or the fact that the game at Fulfordgate was "their first home game at Fulfordgate"
The league gets re-organised and then "which saw York finish sixth in the Principal Competition and runners-up to Denaby United". I don't think the reorganisation necessarily led to York finishing sixth.
" York finished in 12th position in Collier's first season back and had to be content with 15th position in the 1934–35 season, but also gained an FA Cup match with First Division side Derby County in the third round, which was lost 1–0." - consider splitting these two.
"The FA organized regional competitions for football to proceed on a wartime footing and York decided to carry on during the war." - but then you don't talk about any of the football played during the war, instead you head straight for 45/46 season...
I'm about half way through, and I think most of the issues I've come up with are related to the article needing a good copyedit. I suggest you head over to WP:LOCE and place a request. Hope these comments have been useful, if you'd like me to continue reviewing (from 59-80 onwards) then give me a shout. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"...would have ensured promotion to the Third Division against Aldershot in the final game of the season, but lost 1–0." - surely it would have to have been a win against Aldershot to ensure promotion? Reword, something like "a win against Aldershot in the final match of the season would have guaranteed promotion but..."
"...Tom Lockie became the first manager to be dismissed by the club in October 1967 and finished the 1967–68 season in 21st place under new manager ..." - Lockie finished 21st? Slight reword required - e.g. "and the club finished..."
There's a lot of applying for re-election to the league - this needs expanding on at least the first time in order to help the non-expert understand the process a bit.
"perhaps their worst-ever season" - POV. And it doesn't seem any worse than any other season where they finished bottom and had to seek re-election so you need to justify anything like that...
"the first team to do so in the Football League" - first team to do what? Presumably you mean the first team to score over 100 points? You've already mentioned 101 pts was a record so then saying they were the first team to score 101 points is redundant - are you saying one or two things here?
"...and took control of the club ..." exactly how did they achieve this? It's really important to explain this fully as it is a very significant moment in the club's history.
When continually referencing the same book, you can really cut down what you put in the {{Cite book}} template, no need to continually repeat the title, the ISBN etc. Just stick with the author, the year of publication and the page numbers.
That's about it. Good luck with it, wherever you take it from now on! One thing worth considering is a graph of league finishes. That we get a good illustration of all the re-elections and bouncing around near the bottom of the Football League. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The following season saw another play-off appearance, but were beaten by Stockport County in the semi-final - grammatically incorrect - should read "York were beaten"
Also, the penultimate sentence of the lead uses "the club were" (plural) but then the very next sentence uses "the club remains" (singular). It seems a bit unclear whether British English users should refer to "the club" in the singular or the plural, but whichever you choose should be consistently applied....
1991 Slint album, within the scope of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Alternative music. I've been working on this article since early November, where I found it in really bad shape (). This is currently nominated to become a GA. I'm looking toward an eventual FAC nomination for this; any comments to push the article in that direction will be helpful. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reworked this article, added references, wrote history, and now I want some feedback to see if I could take this article to next level - WP:GA and WP:FA, Thank you. —JA10Talk • Contribs05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article I was left with 2 questions. 1- What does the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge look like? It is mentioned several places in the article. If a freely licensed photo can be found, it would add to the article. 2-What is the significance of "Maintained by PennDOT" at the top of the route box? I've seen this on other articles, but I still don't get it. For the states I'm familiar with, all signed state routes are maintained by the state DOT.Davemeistermoab (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on the bridge itself is short, and could easily accommodate a picture. Granted, that is a different article from what you asked to be reviewed. IMO a picture would add to the article, even if linked rather than directly on the article itself. =-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The map in the infobox is odd - it does not identify anything on it (I assume Route 73 is the red line). I am familiar with Pennsylvania geography, so I could figure out some things, but not much. Anyone not knowing about Pennsylvania would be leftclueless by the map. So the article / infobox needs a clear map (either put labels on this one, or get a new one). Also, why all the white space where New Jersey is in the map? If you are not going to show any detail there, just crop it - as it is the map looks off center (with all that white space on the right side). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch><>°17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup, the map isn't great and I knew that I would pose problems for the article. I've been trying to get a new one via WP:USRD/MTFR. But I don't know what's going on they should have finished the new map by now.—JA10Talk • Contribs21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Cropping as it stands right now will not work since the infobox has a predetermined map size ratio. I'm working on improving this map this week. 哦，是吗？(User:O) 04:06, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I always wanted to get this to FA status, but GA first and are very unsure if this article has any potential to become GA since I have done everything I could. Therefore a peer review would be a great idea.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This article on Sarah Trimmer's eighteenth-century journal for reviewing children's books has recently passed GA. I do not believe that it is appropriate material for FA (there is not enough published scholarship to merit a "comprehensive" claim), but I do want to make sure that the article is as good as it can be, so I am soliciting reviews of it. Please comment on accessibility and prose, in particular. Thanks. Awadewit | talk10:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I hosed it up with a boatload of comments... for my two cents, the writing style is a bit subtle and the vocabulary perhaps a bit highbrow-ish, considering that hordes of people will be reading it. Maybe that's OK; I can name two or three Wikipedians who would love it ;-) I saw dashes that looked like ndashes but I thought should have been ems; I really need to commit WP:MOS to memory. Still needs more wikilinking. Is this perhaps relevant to Educational perennialism? As i was reading, all the author's fears of liberal hordes etc. made me wonder if that was a period of instability in British history.. That's all for now; maybe I'll lookk at it again in a week or so. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
See responses to comments in article.
Could you point to examples of the subtle writing? It's too subtle for me to see...:)
I have no idea what the "high-browish" vocabulary is - I looked through the article again and again and I couldn't even find examples of what you might call SAT words. The harder words are all in the quotations - I have dumbed down my vocabulary here deliberately and I'm not really sure that I need to do so anymore. I don't think that hordes of readers are going to be reading this - those who make it to this rather obscure corner of wikipedia are going to be able to follow these words, I'm pretty sure. If they can't, they probably can't follow the ideas either.
I'm a conservative wikilinker - I link only high-value links.
I fixed the dashes - except for those in the page ranges. Someone can run a bot if they care to.
I've never heard the term Educational perennialism used in connection with Trimmer, unfortunately.
I felt that many of the key concepts are based in an understanding of the history of Western culture. I added several wikilinks for this reason... if there are no relevant articles to be linked to for some of the more abstract concepts, then... even a well-educated reader may confuse the terms with their modern counterparts...
I agree that the article assumes one has a grounding in the history of Western culture. However, I think that an article on the first journal to review children's literature in Britain can do that. The readers who will be looking at this article will more than likely have that background. If they do not, they will not understand it at all, I'm afraid. It is difficult to know what level to aim at, but as WP:BETTER#Provide context for the reader explains, we assume different readerships for different articles. For example, I would assume that the History of Britain article would not assume a familiarity with Western culture, while this article, because of its specialized nature, can. The only reason I deleted some of the wikilinks is precisely because they linked to modern explanations. :) Awadewit | talk04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Re "subtle": I have been in relationship-preventing arguments with other Misplaced Pages editors over extremely similar issues. I cannot seem to port the experience I have in placing myself in the shoes of readers who are impervious to the delicate wiles of advanced vocabulary (and the riches of shades of meaning they proffer) to other people. Forex, the paragraph about conspiricies: the whole mental construct hangs on the single signal word "argued," which signals to the reader that all that follows is from Trimmer's POV. But heck, maybe she was just arguing with someone, eh? She was fighting those darn liberals, wasn't she? Don't you argue when you fight? The word "intended" too takes on a new meaning if "argued" is misconstrued in that manner... uh... if you wanna get into my head, try reading "My Trouble is my English" by Danling Fu (sp.?). The editors I alluded to earlier would guffaw at these remarks; I'm hoping you won't. :-)
The thing is, if a reader cannot understand what "Trimmer argued" and "Trimmer intended" means, they have much more serious reading comprehension problems than we can address here. You know I teach composition at the college level - I have seen these comprehension problems. If a reader cannot grasp these basic issues, we can only do so much - I have indicated the intention and POV for every single sentence. That is actually overkill, but I was trying to be as clear as possible. I'm not really sure how you would want this to be written - too much explanation actually becomes wordy and confusing. Awadewit | talk04:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the turmoil you mentioned should be mentioned in the article. this requires the addition of only one or at most two sentences.
Bye for now — my better half just called & let the phone ring once, hung up, then let it ring again.. so I need to go home.. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent).
OK. :-) I guess the underlying point of some of my stuff above was simply that I think the POV-shift in the article is unnecessary... POV-shift is a literary device; I'm not sure it is the best tool for presnting information within an encyclopedia article. As for "highbrow", well, I should have known better; I should have chosen a word that doesn't have some faint negative connotations. Many of the words are very low-frequency, e.g. "praxis." Yes it's relatively more frequent in education literature (my second grad degree was in the area of education). Yes I recall that you mentioned there's some WP:MOS rule about not wikilinking within a direct quote (?). If such a rule exists, then it is a good example of a rule that deserves to be ignored. Think of it as a small but meaningful example of WP:IAR if you like. To paraphrase Mark 2:27 (you'll recall I'm teaching Bible lit ;-) ) "Misplaced Pages was not made for WP:MOS, but WP:MOS for Misplaced Pages." Reader-centered comprehensibility always trumps writer-centered rules, regardless of the latter's rationalization(s).
I guess I don't really see the shifts - it is all third-person reporting, if you know what I mean. The article doesn't speak in Trimmer's voice (that would be very literary).
"Praxis" is a more sophisticated word, but it is in a quote that I feel is necessary. I feel very uncomfortable linking words that are not proper nouns in quotations. To me it really is interpretation. I would fight such linking even without the MOS rule, as I see it as an alteration of the quotation. As a literary scholar, it makes me nervous when people start altering and interpreting quotations like that. I do ignore that rule when names and places need to be elucidated, but that is about as far as my faint heart will go. :)
But I'm done yammering now. I dunno if I have anything else to say... I'm absolutely certain this article will rec'v a well-deserved FA in a relatively short while. It just needs a trivial amount of shining up. :-) Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not taking it to FAC - see peer review statement above. I don't think it can be FA, do you? (Thanks for the careful review!) Awadewit | talk11:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh I really don't know how the FAC regulars interpret "comprehensive". To me it is comprehensive because I can't imagine any more being written about this particular topic.. plus it is extremly good even if (in my opinion...) a bit too difficult in vocab and sentence structure... but I am an utter FAC newbie.. I think my comments today on John Knox were my first ever on a FAC that was not my own. Sorry if I sounded snippy or snobbish or anything negative. My evil alternate personality emerges when I express my inner self. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
QP10qp
An interesting article about a little-known "first" (though I can say, smugly, that as a reader of the Sarah Trimmer article, I was aware of this, thanks to the same editor). The article is cutting-edge, in its way, because it is one thing for feminist scholars to haul their spiritual ancestors into the light, but another to unearth conservative female figures and polish them up with the same loving care.
The article is very well written from sentence to sentence, but I think Ling Nut has a point—not so much, in my opinion, that the words are too long, or whatever, but that the prose reads a little heavily at times. In my opinion this is down to a reliance, in places, on too many sentences, one after another, of a similar length and cadence. An example would be the paragraph beginning "Late in life...", in my opinion. A short sentence or two would provide variety, I think, and renew the impetus. I know that you read articles out aloud while editing (I do too), and perhaps another run-through might throw up places where the prose could do with a little more spring in its step. (This is a downright finicky thing for me to say, I admit, but there's little in the article to criticise, so I am perhaps grasping at a straw).
As a high-church Anglican, she was intent on protecting Christianity from secularism as well as evangelicalism, particularly as it manifested itself in Methodism. Something about this somewhat over-ismed sentence leaves me unclear about what manifested itself in Methodism. I was going to copyedit to "as the latter" but could not be certain I was reading this as intended.
The link to Some Account of the Life and Writings of Mrs. Trimmer. I tend to add something like "Full view available at Google Books" for Google Books links like that, just to give the readers an idea of where they are going when they click.
"I will only say, that the more I reflect on the subject, the more I am convinced that it is not right to supersede the figurative style in which they speak of God and divine things, my opinion is, that whoever attempts to teach the truths of divine revelation, should follow the method of the inspired writers as nearly as possible" I found this difficult to get my head round; who are "they"? Not one of Mrs Trimmer's most inspired sentences, I venture. You introduce this after mentioning inerrancy rather than style, so for me the context isn't self-explanatory.
Attempted to explain: For Trimmer, the truth of the Bible was not only in its content, but also in its style, and some of her harshest reviews were written against texts that altered both the style and the substance of the Bible.Awadewit | talk02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
caretakers: Did you know that in BE this has the meaning of "janitors"? We would say "carers" here. This isn't to insist on British vocabulary, of course, but just to tell you that this is one of those transpondian oddities.
I knew it wasn't just spelling. :) New sentence: Trimmer also maintained that mothers and fathers should share the responsibility of caring for the family.Awadewit | talk02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Other notable children's authors reviewed in the Guardian include Wollstonecraft, Sarah Fielding, and Dorothy Kilner. This seemed to me rather tacked on to the end of its paragraph.
Well, there you are. You are getting so good at this lark that I've had a struggle coming up with even this many nitpicks. It's neat that you've taken the trouble with this article, even though you don't intend to try for FA. The quest for quality comes through just the same, and I wouldn't have expected anything else. qp10qp (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki page of Philippine Idol has been a collaboration since 2006. I polished the article from a whopping 80+K page to around 50+K to serve as an example for other Wiki pages of Philippine television shows to achieve a GA status. It has been extensively researched ranging from its official website to news reports and entertainment columns, and most links have been updated. I appreciate your comments and suggestions.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I did a major rewrite of the article, and although there haven't been any complaints so far, I would welcome more eyeballs to doublecheck my work and to suggest future improvements. Alecmconroy15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
With the series over now this seems like a good time to try and get at leaste one Harry Potter article to featured status and IMO this is the best one. At a glance I can see a major problem with a lack of refs and the way some of the one that are there are set out. Also is the book's own content a good enough ref? Buc08:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I need to see how the article can be improved to GA status, and ultimately FA status. I will fix any nuisances that are mentioned here. The last peer review was almost no good (as it was reviewed by a bot). TheChronic23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Review by Jayron32
Random thoughts, as I come across them.
Problems with informal language:
In lead: "laced up sneakers" very informal.
In History section: "did not achieve much success" exessive verbage. Try "were unsuccessful"
Same section: "reverse the team's fortunes in a dramatic way" informal, uses peacock words
Section title: "Plunge to the lottery": rather jargony. Non-NBA fans have NO idea what this means.
Probably lots of other language issues. I am NOT a good copy editor. Consider seeking the help of the league of copy editors for help with this.
Organization issues:
summary style issues. When you split a section into a new article, there is no need for the section to remain as long as the daughter article. For example, the "History" section is WAY too long and excessively detailed in places. Consider paring it down to the highlights, and move the details to the daughter article. Think about "lead" sized (or maybe slightly larger). I would think you could pare the history section down to like 3-5 paragraphs total. If its long enough to have subsections, its too long in this case.
The section on transactions also has the same problem. Consider reducing ALL sections on players down to a single section. "Notable players" and spliting info to other articles. Under notable players, it is probably OK to significantly limit this to players of real distinction (such as Hall of Famers or Top 50 all-time players, like Pippin). We don't need every single draft pick the team has ever made here.
This article should be the kind of article where someone who knows next-to-nothing about the Blazers would get a general overview of the team. The daughter articles (like a Players article, and a Seasons article and the like) would be the place to get more details. Consider the following organizational scheme:
Name and branding (condense the Blazermania stuff into here)
History (condense some of the "and the media" stuff into here too...)
Players
Notable past players (keep it about MAJOR players, such as retired numbers, hall-of-famers, and Top 50s (like Pippen)
Current players
Coaching staff
Front office
Media personel (keep on the personalities, like radio and TV play-by-play etc.)
Team and league records (include team record holders, league record holders, championships won, overall and playoff records, etc.)
Venue
Consider the following "Daughter" articles to take up the details from this one. Some of these probably already exist:
History article
Players and coaches article (include sections on draft picks, all stars, major trades, retired numbers etc.)
Seasons article (several NFL teams have featured seasons articles... try Chicago Bears seasons for a great example)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence, which says the show is a "BBC television drama produced by the BBC ...for BBC One", is unnessarily redundant. I'd lose at least first instance of "BBC" (you can always pipe link "television drama" to BBC television drama if that's necessary); the third reference could be moved to another sentence.
The second sentence in the lead is very choppy, with lots of short clauses and two parenthetical statements. It needs to be simplified, either by reordering the clauses, or by breaking them into two sentences—something along the lines of "Created by G.F. Newman, it follows the exploits of a High Court judge—Sir John Deed, played by Martin Shaw—as he tries to seek justice in the cases brought before him." You later mention the fact that Newman is well-known as the creator of Law and Order, but you probably don't need to do so in the lead; it's not really relevant to this article.
There are multiple wikilinks to the same articles; per WP:MOS, only the first instance should be wikilinked. Examples include Martin Shaw (three times in the first three paragraphs), High Court (twice in the first three paragraphs), G.F. Newman, Law and Order and many others.
Commas are missing in lots of places. Some examples:
"As of 2007 there have been 29 episodes..."
"In later years the series has shifted to a serialised format..."
"Ratings for the series peaked with its first episode at 9.1 million but it still ..."
"the BBC had announced an intention to use Martin Shaw in a range of new projects and it was apparent..."
The sentence "The series remains on a break until the style is changed and due to Martin Shaw's involvement in a new series." is not well-written grammatically.
All single dashes need to be converted to em-dashes, per WP:MOS.
"Deed has been accused of hypocrisy..." Is it the character or the show that's been accused? It's unclear from the article.
Glad to hear you've approached the LoCE; that will probably clean up a lot of these issues. I'll try to add more comment about the content of the article (as opposed to the writing) if I get some time over the holidays. Good luck with your drive toward improving the article! MeegsC | Talk12:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have just completed an expansion of the article and would appreciate some feedback, I particularly ask for this because Philip is a friend and associate and I would value third party comments on whether I have maintained a sufficiently neutral point of view.
I'd like to do so, and of course I have the information (or can easily get it) as I know him. The problem is that little or none of it has been published and this would therefore be original research! It may be that one of his radio interviews published on the www has this information, which would be a better source. Or of Philip himself were to post the information on the talk page, could we then include it? Kim Dent-Brown13:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure. I guess not, as we don't really know if it's him posting it, and/or it would be his original research! DrKiernan13:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I've found a helpful policy here, which indicates that non-contentious information (such as education, working life etc) can be sourced to a self-published item like a blog or website. So if I can get Philip to provide this I can then cite it and use the relevant info. Kim Dent-Brown16:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't very long. Should it be longer?
I've written most of this article and I'd like some "outside eyes" to take a look. I feel it is well sourced and it even has an image. I'm a bit concerned that it isn't global enough, I don't know of the term "redlining" being used to describe practices in other countries. I also worry that it a bit limited on the history side, should I add more info about earlier form of mortgage discrimination that predate the use of the term "redlining" ? Should I talk about Jim Crow laws that made it hard for blacks to buy property? Or is it better to leave that to other articles on segregation and discrimination in the US? When people say "redlining" they are usual talking about the practice as it occurred in the US in urban settings. Is it OK that that is where the focus of this article remains?
A section on the legality of redlining might be needed: state laws, current cases, recent insurance/banking department rulings.
The article tend to lean towards race as the primary cause (and it historically was, as the true definition implies) but the article should be expanded to address economic, enviromental (coastal areas), and any other causes of current redlining.
Great reference section. Nicely researched.
Just my 2 cents worth, Gtstricky18:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know what you meant by coastal so I did a little research and found out that it's called "Shorelining" -- perhaps it would be better to start an article on this topic?
Shorelining is the practice of insurance companies charing higher rates to homeowners located near the coast in Hurricane-prone regions. Word shorelining is meant to evoke redlining, and therefore discrimination.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish to nominate this article for peer review. I've made extensive edits and additions to this article and wish to see where it stands and where further edits may be necessary.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt11:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the record for shortest time from GA-failed to GA-passed is, or even if there is one, but four days has to be pretty good. We're now looking for those little things we've missed that will annoy the FA reviewers. A comment has already been made on the talk page suggesting a "difference between book and musical" paragraph/section, which is a good idea. Any other suggestions? Happy‑melon18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The answer to your question is minutes; please don't assume GA makes an FA, because GAs are passed by one editor and GA status has little relevance to FA preparedness. Some things to work on—samples only, no need to get back to me as corrections are done:
WP:OVERLINKing. Don't most English speakers know words and places like witch, word-of-mouth, Canada, Connecticut, New York, and United States, and I saw Joel Grey linked many times. The article is awash in blue, and those irrelevant overlinks dilute the high-value links. Only links which provide specific context to this article are needed, and terms need be linked only on the first occurrence. Ditto for Glinda, Elphaba, Medina—they are repeatedly linked. And why the links in the infobox to Chicago, Tokyo, etc? Don't most people know what those major cities are, and is clicking on those links going to tell me something about Stephen Schwartz? I removed linking of solo years, see WP:MOSDATE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
POV has crept in with WP:PEACOCKery. Yes, we all know it's one of the greatest musicals ever; let the numbers and review say that without adding inflated, peacock terms. Sample in the lead, "Although the production received mixed reviews and was panned by the New York Times, it was extremely popular" ... extremely isn't needed. Check the text for such things. Here's another one that's not necessary: Wicked's popularity dramatically spread quickly by word-of-mouth ...
Have a look at WP:LEAD for how a lead should be constructed before you approach FAC. Why is a transitional event like the Stagehand Strike mentioned in the lead?
WP:MOSNUM (read it all before approaching FAC, it is exactly the kind of page that is overlooked at GA): avoid starting sentences with numbers. 800,000 people have seen the West End production and over 2 million the North American tour.
WP:MOSNUM: The show was nominated for ten of the 2004 Tony Awards, ...
Format your ref dates consistently so user preferences will work—see how ugly this looks?
^ "Something Wicked This Way Comes". Ugly Betty. November 1, 2007. No. 6, season 2.
^ "A “Wicked” Ugly Betty Episode", BroadwayWorld TV, 2007-11-01. Retrieved on November 5, 2007.
You need to put brackets around the 2007-11-01 so it will format.
All sources should have a publisher identified, notice:
Wicked - die Hexen von Oz. Retrieved on November 9, 2007.
Who published that? It also needs a language icon.
And this one, for example: Wicked on Broadway. Retrieved on November 8, 2007.
I didn't check them all, but make sure that everything sourced to (^ a b c d e f g h i Wicked - Musical Themes. MusicalSchwartz.com.) Stephen Scwartz is a statement *from* Stephen Schwartz; he is not an unbiased source, and he should only be used to source what *he* says.
The "Casts" section has refs hanging mid-air; they should be attached to sentences or something. Also, Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a Playbill. I'm not sure current cast is appropriate (see WP:NOT). There's also a hanging ref at the end of principle roles; better to add an introductory sentence and attach it to that, or incorporate it into the table as a footnote. The cast lists should be shuffled off to a daughter article, and this section should focus much more on the critical reception of Grey, Idina, et al.
I don't see a Production section at all; the article cannot be comprehensive (1b) without that.
There is essentially (unfortunately) no working Theatre WikiProject, but see the Film Guidelines for some helpful tips: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines They should help you better write the Cast and Production and Critical reception sections.
Please see the exercises for reducing redundancy on Tony1 (talk·contribs)'s user page. Example: The Broadway production opened October 30, 2003 to very mixed and largely conservative reviews from theatre critics ...
That's all I have time for now: I'll come back to add more if I have some free time. The missing sections (for example, Production) really must be added before you approach FAC. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Undefined acronym redirect; check throughout. " ... and was certified platinum by the RIAA ... " 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish to take Carnivàle, List of Carnivàle episodes, Characters of Carnivàle and Mythology of Carnivàle to Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates (making it the first TV show to possibly achieve this ranking) as soon as the GAC subarticles have successfully passed their candidacy. Copyedits are always welcome, especially for grammar where my judgement as a non-native speaker may not always be optimal. I have already addressed some recent anon comments that suggested clarity improvements for Mythology of Carnivàle, but I wonder now if someone (who is possibly not so familiar with the show) may see further things to improve that I may have grown blind to notice over the last few months of extensive wiki-editing. Thanks for any comments, – sgeureka17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Reference consistency. I know this is likely to be quite dull but I notice that some footnotes (in Mythology of Carnivàle but possibly elsewhere also) with quotes use the cite episode template and some just give a link to the episode in brackets. Since these links are now redirects to the episode list I think the references definitely need to be made consistent and use the cite episode template. I'll help out changing this if I have time.--Opark 7723:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I did this on purpose to not blow the ref sections more than they already are in size. When an action or series of events is important, the full episode information is provided. If I sourced directly from a quote, naming the episode is IMO just a gimmick and the reader will find exact production details behind the episode link. If there is a set of quotes from the same episode, I used the full episode information instead of linking to the Episode list repeatedly. But I see no harm in adding the full {{cite episode}} information again as my way may in fact appear random. – sgeureka01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A copy edit will be needed before FAC and I will happily provide an invested pass. I think a request at the league of copyeditors is also worthwhile. However, perhaps an A-class assessment from WP:TV would circumvent the need for this. I can provide this but perhaps someone less involved should be requested first. I'd request the copy edit now and wait for the GA candidacys to close and then request reassessment if passed.--Opark 7723:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I still have some more sourced ideas that may enrichen Characters of Carnivàle, and tons of third-party material for Mythology of Carnivàle#Reception, media interpretation and legacy trying to make sense of the show (which I will probably not add as 30 people saying they didn't get the meaning of the show is not necessarily better than 10 people saying the same.) My experience with the Copyeditors League with Carnivàle is that for the time it takes them to get to an article, it has minimal results (this is not a complain!), but maybe your copyedit was just to darn good to begin with. I am constantly doing minor passes here and there, but my final-final pass will be based on what this peer review will bring up. Thank you for your comments and work on the articles. – sgeureka01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Update 2. I have restructured the character article some more and I'm also done with copyediting. I am so pleased with its current state that once it is GA and this topic has achieved FT, I don't see much left to do (except minor copyediting) before taking it to FA. I don't have any current FAC plans for the mythology article though. – sgeureka11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is a well written article about a famous sportswoman. I believe it could reach GA-status.
Nergaal13:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The article looks very good. A few brief comments...
The WP:LEDE doesn't summarize the article as a whole. This would disqualify you from GA status.
People argue about whether page numbers should be included in citations. I won't go into their motivations for arguing; I'll just say that the way I read WP:CITE makes me think that page numbers should be given. One way to to do this when using the footnote style of citations is to have two separate sections: One for the full reference of the book (publisher, title etc.) and one for the author's name, year and page number. See Georg Cantor for an example. As I said, some would argue that this is unnecessary. I think they haven't read WP:CITE closely.
In cases where no page number is possible or where the info is taaken from the same page of a book, you can use "named references." See the section about naming ref tags on Misplaced Pages:Footnotes. I did one for you as an example: The International Gymnast magazine references (six of them).
While I'm thiking of that website, it mentions that Nadia was "named one of the Athletes of the Century." I didn't see that in the article, did I miss it? I think it is important info.
Comments, book sources need page numbers, and I have serious doubts that this is a reliable source. I made some MOS and other changes; please refer to my edit summaries and inline comments. I also have doubts that Gymn-forum is a reliable source. I suggest you improve the sourcing, and improve the formatting of the sources (per WP:CITE/ES) before approaching GA. Also, read up on WP:DASH, WP:MOSDATE and MOS:CAPS#All caps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've moved some of the information into appropriate sections and added references to verify all the information which was previously unverified.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
LordHarris
Just a few quick thoughts looking over the article in brief:
You first need to work on the lead, take a look at WP:Lead as it needs expanding in line with the MOS.
Second try not to have a list of departments, rather incorporate them into prose, perhaps adding news stories or university articles relating to the departments research and staff.
Third I would recommend creating a new article for alumni of southampton and add a main article link to the new article with a short paragraph mentioning a few of the leading members of staff.
Most important you need to add lots more references, there are dozens of news stories of interest and notability on the BBC news website alone relating to the university. Try expanding the article with these sources.
Also with the history section for example try adding references from any material released on the university e.g. a history book of the university or from the university prospectus which you could request. I think the article is coming along but it still needs a lot of work. Good job so far. LordHarris (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
An anon editor has asked for this article to be reviewed, but it is not clear what specific points need to be addressed. --Bduke11:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here.
To me there appear to be far too many single-paragraph sections. There are also too many unsourced facts; I'd expect to see at least one citation per paragraph. Finally, I think it would be a good idea to stick with a single currency. Values in both US dollars and Euros are too time dependent, as currency exchanges fluctuate frequently. — RJH (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have pretty much re-written this article since the last peer review and believe I have addressed the vast majority of the points raised. Looking for GA as soon as possible, along with any advice and help to get it up to FA. Thanks. --Jameboy16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
So, strange situation because I've already said I'd review this for GA but in parallel we have a PR, so I'll leave my comments here and see what happens, bearing in mind I'll review with minimum GA and beyond in mind (thinking of FA in other words...)
Aye, first time up... I'll be better organised next time and have more idea what I'm aiming for!
Move citations to comply with WP:CITE, immediately to right of punctuation.
Done One obvious one changed, one questionable one adjusted. I assume this doesn't apply to infoboxes, tables and lists, which don't have punctuation.
Avoid prose within the parentheses. If it's worth being there, flow it.
Done I think the only parentheses remaining at the start of the lead and also in the Statistics section, where I found it hard to rephrase without them.
"This made Albion virtually an automatic choice..." - says who?
Done It was William McGregor. I have re-written the sentences(s) from the original source. Also the William McGregor article has more detail on this topic.
Be consistent with season descriptions, you have 1910–11 and then 1919–1920.
Done
Yuck, World War I - English should refer to this as First World War. Same with its successor.
Additional information needed These are the actual article titles, so are you saying this is an Americanism? Is "World War One" acceptable, i.e. dropping the roman numeral?
All those articles are incorrect then! British English supports "First World War" and "Second World War", this is a British English article so that's what I think.. But frankly, it's not that big a deal, just anomalous. Next up you should change the Colours section to Colors! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"...this particular "Double"...." - needs further clarification - you mean winning the FA cup and being relegated? It's not clear.
Done FA Cup and promotion. I've clarified this and provided a separate cite (from 2007) that this is achievement is unique.
"...hailed as "The Team of the Century"..." - this is some claim. I'm sure the citation helps but you have to justify it in the text.
Done I've elaborated on this a little. If you can give an idea of what sort of thing you're looking for here, I can probably provide it.
"...there followed the club's longest ever continuous run in the top flight of English football, a total of 24 years." - cite it please.
Done I've cited the 24-year unbroken streak. Haven't been able to cite it being their longest run in the top flight so have taken it out. This is annoying because it is definitely correct (see the graph at the foot of the article), I just can't find it explicitly written anywhere. I can't find a way of citing it that wouldn't be OR. D'oh. Someone just posted on my talk page... seems I may have miscostrued OR slightly, so may be able to cite this after all.
En-dash - I saw a 1972-1973 instead of a 1972–73 there....
Done
"..of 1500–2000..." not keen, perhaps "between 1,500 and 2,000..."
Done
Heed WP:HEAD for headings - "Notable Fomer Players" -> "Notable former players"
Done
In that table, link the positions, consider reformatting so it looks pleasant, make it sortable.
Additional information needed Have linked the positions and made the table sortable. What do you mean by "looks pleasant"?
Well, little things like not letting the names go to two lines, consistent position naming, for two periods with the club separate with newline rather than a comma... There's scope for improving the appearance, that's what I meant, sorry it wasn't specific enough! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'd look at making this and the manager table consistent, little things like column widths, {{sortname}} templates for the mangers, just to keep the article looking professional all the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Additional information needed The names are all on one line and look fine, but then I have 1440x900 screen resolution. Any idea what is the lowest/highest resolution that a Misplaced Pages article should cater for? The name sorting template doesn't include a non-breaking space as far as I can tell, so I may need to widen the columns. --Jameboy (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the notable players table definitely has broken names on my screen, Safari, 12" iBook... Plus you can use the nowrap template outside the sortname template. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Done See what you think.
Wowwwweeee, one manager for 1520 games. Incredible. (That's just an observation, no action required!)
Remark: He was definitely in charge for 46 years, but I haven't yet independently verified the stats, I've only used soccerbase. What I need to do quite soon is get the managers sub-article (list) to FL by verifying the stats against several books I have, then use the verified results in the main article. This is probably a barrier to FA for this article until I complete this task, not sure about GA though.
Ensure citations relating to multiple pages of books have consistent "pp", not just "p".
Thankyou for your excellent feedback. I've also added more images to the article and re-arranged some of the existing images. --Jameboy (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this article needs somebody with a lot of time and mathematical experience to review this article. It has a lot of math terms in in and I hope that people other than just me could take a look and see if anything is wrong. Thanks. Parent544622:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
RJH
As far as I can see upon a quick glance through, the math looks okay. Here's a few issues that struck me while reading the article:
Statements like "fascinated", "remarkable", "occurs often" and "difficult to understand" express a point of view, so they either need to be backed up with a citation or rendered more neutral in style.
There are a number of facts on this page that, while true, are unsourced. For example, "It remains the formula of choice for π calculating software..."
The constant e is first introduced without explanation, as is the gamma function Γ(1/4). e is then defined down in the complex analysis section.
Overall I think there may need to be more explanation of the jargon for the non-mathematically inclined. For example, the summation formula in the "Age of computers" section. Both the factorial and the summation symbols may need to be explained. Likewise the absolute value brackets in the "Naturality" section and integrals starting in the geometry section. About all I can say about the Physics section is that the formulae are meaningless without an explanation of the parameters and some clarification of their purpose.
Is the continued fraction really appropriate for the infobox? Shouldn't it be down in the body of the article? At first glance it would also seem rather useless, so why is it of particular note to the reader (other than as a triumph of mathematical theorists)?
I've listed this article for peer review because… the artical needs other pairs of eyes commenting on flow, structure, and areas where more development is necessary. Additionally, sourcing and quality thereof.
I can only comment on style points, sorry - I don't know much about the topic, and surely someone more experienced than me is needed to comment on such huge article. Nevertheless, here are some points:
References and citations have to be fixed in most places. The <ref> tag always goes after the punctuation mark, not before, ie. Blah blah blah.<ref>blah</ref>, not Blah blah blah<ref>blah</ref>. See WP:CITE and WP:FN.
Another point about references is that because many of them are from the same books/articles, you may want to create a section called "References" and another called "Notes" or "Footnotes". List the appropriate books (ie. Davies', McAllister's) in the "References" and use "Notes" for the actual notes. Citing Davies, for example, would then look like "Davies, 508", not "Davies, op cit, page 508", and it'd reduce article size. And while you're at it, you may also want to arrange the list of references into two or three columns.
Some sections and quotations need references: for example, the section "Rebranding & "Leadership" 2006" has none, and (upon returning, he wrote of Hitler in the Daily Express as "the greatest living German", "the George Washington of Germany") in "Pre-War" needs a reference (not necessarily the exact article in Daily Express, but perhaps a book where it is quoted).
I really don't know much about the subject of the article, but I think many people will find it suspicious (ie. at GA and FA) that the Davies book is used so extensively. Sometimes the same page is cited for several paragraphs - perhaps there's some other material available? Some material distributed by the party itself, maybe?
Style issues unrelated to references:
For an article this size, the lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD: you have to provide a working summary of the article.
Dates have to be edited according to WP:DATE - ie. individual years should not be linked, there should be no apostrophes (1950s instead of 1950's), – should be used instead of a simple dash when talking about time periods, full dates should be linked, etc.
All "see also" marks at the beginning of the article and in sections should be preceded by a colon to create a space before them, and there should be just for any number of links. Ie:
"It was in this climate that the two groups met. " - which two groups? They're only mentioned in the lead, and the lead is simply a summary. You have to mention the groups in the first section before making such remark. (or perhaps I didn't understand the first paragraphs..) DONEDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The "wrote Dr. Davies" remarks should be avoided, especially in this case, since Davies is your main source, and your only source for many statements. Try to reword his sentences instead of quoting directly, and simply add references as usual.
Generally, I wouldn't create such small sections as "Early broadcasting campaigns". They clutter up the article, making it harder to read, they will probably never be expanded, and they can be easily incorporated into other sections. NOTEDDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous bits and pieces of text that should either be reworded or rewritten entirely, very small paragraphs that could be incorporated into bigger ones, etc. In other words, copy-editing is required. Try requesting a copy-edit from WP:LOCE - that is, when the article complies with the style (and content) requirements listed on that page.
Speaking of those requirements, have you tried asking for help at the Wales WikiProject's talk page? Someone who is knowledgeable on the topic may add helpful remarks, and also perhaps challenge some of the statements in order to work the article up to NPOV (as I said, I don't really know anything about the topic to comment on that; I just assume that any political topic is bound to raise some NPOV issues, especially when only a single person works on the article).
Otherwise, you did a fantastic job for what seems to me an important topic. The length of the article alone is amazing! I know its not pleasant at all to go through all that material fixing the style issues (I've went through such things myself!), but believe me, it will give the article a much more professional look and feel. Best of luck with it, Jashiin22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Jashiin! I appreciate your review and will get started straight away on the edits. Some of the smaller sections such as Early broadcasting campigns I do have every intention on expanding (and did so with Census information, but I am awaiting a book on broadcasting in Wales by John Davies). But I take your point. The early sections are heavily reliant on John Davies, it is true. I will get additional sources to compliment and balance that. But Davies was so elequent! lol. Thankx again and Im getting started on this this weekend!Drachenfyre (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ralph Flanders was an American mechanical engineer, industrialist and Republican U.S. Senator from the state of Vermont. Flanders used his experience as a successful industrialist to advise Vermont and national commissions on public economic policy. He was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy for his sensational, but largely unfounded, accusations that many public figures, especially those in government, were Communists.
I have substantially upgraded this article to include Harvard references to his autobiography. I would like it to be considered as a Good Article within Project WikiProject Biography. It has already been rated as an A-Class article of Mid importance in WikiProject U.S. Congress. HopsonRoad17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Holy frijoles! This article, formerly very nice, is now awesome! It is said that the "primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement." This in fact has already been going on in the case of Ralph Flanders, as HopsonRoad, RedSpruce, and I discussed the referencing system. Well knock my socks off, this article now has some of the better referencing found anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Countless thanks, HopsonRoad, for donating the time to make this article so great. This is the kind of thing that will make Misplaced Pages sublime.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well written, organized and solid referencing. Not to mention the great picture research and usage. I am also happy to see an article where wikilinking is done judiciously, with the purpose to add context. Thank you HopsonRoad for a really well written and polished article. CApitol313:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply to review
Thank you, Geared Bull, for taking the time to review this article. Based on other input, I’ve done a bit more style editing.HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a well-written article for the most part. It assumes that Senator Flanders was right on communism and that Senator McCarthy was wrong -- the traditional view.
cites new evidence, in the form of Venona decrypted Soviet messages, Soviet espionage data now opened to the West, and newly released transcripts of closed hearings before McCarthy's subcommittee, asserting that these have vindicated McCarthy, showing that many of his identifications of Communists were correct. It has also been said that Venona and the Soviet archives have revealed that the scale of Soviet espionage activity in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s was larger than many scholars suspected, and that this too stands as a vindication of McCarthy.
Some responses to these viewpoints have been written by Kevin Drum and Johann Hari. Historian John Earl Haynes has also argued against this 'rehabilitation' of McCarthy, saying that McCarthy's attempts to "make anticommunism a partisan weapon" actually "threatened anti-Communist consensus," thereby ultimately harming anti-Communist efforts more than helping.
Of the many individuals that figured in McCarthy's investigations or speeches, most were already suspected of being Communists or at least of having leftist politics. There are several cases where Venona or other recent data has confirmed or increased the weight of evidence that a person named by McCarthy was a Soviet agent. However, there are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent.
Below are listed the names that various authors have alleged were "correctly identified by McCarthy." As the footnotes show, in almost all cases this assessment is questionable or demonstrably incorrect.
Solomon Adler
Cedric Belfrage
T.A. Bisson
Lauchlin Currie
Gustavo Duran
Theodore Geiger
Haldore Hanson
Mary Jane Keeney
Owen Lattimore
Leonard Mins
Annie Lee Moss --Senator Symington's defense of Moss has been refuted.
Franz Leopold Neumann
Edward Posniak
William Remington
John Carter Vincent
The article might should have a paragraph or two saying that Flanders underestimated the communist conspiracy even on the assumption that McCarthy overstated it.
There is another book which exonerates McCarthy written by a conventional American liberal about 2000. I unfortunately cannot remember his name but will try to find it.
This scholarly book rejects the conventional view on McCarthy, written by a liberal: Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator by Arthur Herman. Ann Coulter's book is more opinion and informal; this is fully documented. If true, Herman has found a whole generation of faulty scholarship on McCarthy.
Thank you for taking the time to review this article.
You suggest that the article "assumes that Senator Flanders was right on communism and that Senator McCarthy was wrong." I feel that either assumption would be a POV. In augmenting the article, I drew on published sources available to me. If you have published sources that you can recommend to further describe how others reacted to Flanders's assessment of McCarthy's approach to fighting communism, I feel that they should be included for completeness. You could leave such suggestions at Talk:Ralph Flanders.
You suggest that "The article might should have a paragraph or two saying that Flanders underestimated the communist conspiracy even on the assumption that McCarthy overstated it," especially in light of Venona. I’m unaware of any literature where is there a statement about how large Flanders estimated the internal Communist threat to be, so it would be impossible to state that he underestimated it. The record is clear that Flanders felt that the external Communist threat was extremely serious—so tremendous that it would leave the US and Canada isolated as free nations—and that he felt McCarthy’s actions distracted the nation from it.
I feel that estimation of the internal threat of communism is a more appropriate discussion for the Joseph McCarthy or McCarthyism articles. The scope of this article should be limited to what Flanders thought and whether others agreed with him.
I have rephrased the lead paragraph that you edited to state: "He was noted for introducing a 1954 motion in the Senate to censure Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy had made unsubstantiated claims that there were large numbers of Communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the federal government. Ultimately, his tactics led to his being discredited and censured by the United States Senate." The first sentence is undisputed, the second and third ones have stood the test of time in Joseph McCarthy.
HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at this article, Miranda. You will find at Harvard referencing that page numbers are optional, not required. In this case, I’ve used them where a passage is buried in a book, not when casual perusal of a reference would quickly find the discussion.HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Review by N-J Seigel, non-Misplaced Pages reviewer
I still am hoping someone will look at this article with the depth of a college professor—still giving the high grades, but also making further, specific remarks/suggestions about length, organization, and style.
Although the content, as a comprehensive article, is undeniably excellent, and a major contribution to Misplaced Pages, there remain punctuation errors, repetitions and long sentences, which need work.
As to length, it is easy to justify including everything. However, a little bit less might be better. I think some deletions would improve the article as a whole, and make it a better "read"—for example, leaving out all of REF's Senate committee assignments.
Thank you for looking at this article, N-J Seigel. I have received your independent style edit and have implemented most of your suggestions in the next revision. I have received no comments from other reviewers suggesting issues with length, beyond the need to expand the lead paragraph.
An impressively comprehensive article. Flanders' views on liberalism and conservatism, as further described at http://www.vpr.net/episode/31630/ may be of particular interest to many readers. My concern is just that it is a rather fluffy. For example, most short biographies of politicians wouldn't note that "He wanted to signal to the world at large that all nations “should work together toward human betterment...". Not because it isn't true, but simply because politicians say those sort of things all the time. The "Doing “what no one else was willing to do"" section might be another example. A more critical, skeptical tone would give the article more gravitas. I note that according to the Vermont Encyclopedia, "His voting record, more popular with conservative constituents than that of his colleague George Akin, reflected his business orientation." That's the sort of observation that is very useful, and inclusion of something like that would help diversify your sources, which at present are rather overconcentrated to Flanders' own book. You could also cite Time's August 2, 1954 article ("The Dispensable Man") which says that Flanders won the support of a group of 23 top businessmen, labor leaders and educators for the censure motion, but the article should not be lengthened further, in my opinion.Bdell555 (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Reply to review
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. Your observations have been helpful to make the article more suitable for Misplaced Pages. Here is what I have done in response to your suggestions:
Because the views on liberalism and conservatism, as further described at http://www.vpr.net/episode/31630/, were quotations from Flanders's autobiography already referenced in the article, I simply added the link.
To address the "fluff" factor, I have deleted the "Doing 'what no one else was willing to do'" section and added the Vermont Encyclopedia citation in a revised section, Senate record and committee assignments.
I have added the Time reference to the section, On Joseph McCarthy.
I understand the concern for an over-concentration of sources in Flanders's autobiography. Fortune wrote a puff piece on his pre-senate career. There are diverse news articles that pertain to his McCarthy role. I'll look into adding an American Society of Engineers biography on Hartness as a source pertaining to his engineering career. I'm afraid that, for a minor historical figure, that's probably the best we can do. In addressing your concerns, I have shortened the article slightly.
Sincerely, --User:HopsonRoad17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively revised, rewritten, and supplemented this pre-existing article over the last six months or so, and would like fresh pairs of eyes to have a look, make NPOV, contribute, etc.
Thanks,
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively revised, rewritten, and supplemented this pre-existing article. The "Appraisal" section is entirely new, and so is nearly all of the "Revisions and variant versions" section.
Well, before you undertook this revision, the article only had a plot summary, so way to go! However, I think that studying some GA and FA drama articles might guide you in your development of the article (e.g. The Country Wife, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet). I noticed that, so far, your sources have all come from the internet. With a play like The School for Scandal, you are going to have to invest in serious library time, as the best scholarship on Sheridan's plays is not available on the internet. I would start with something like The Cambridge Companion to British Theatre, 1730-1830 to get a solid background. It will also have a bibliography that will guide you to other books and articles on Sheridan's works. We want to be sure that wikipedia's articles are based on the best scholarship available.
This research will also help you conceptualize more sections, such as "Themes" and "Style". There is already some material in the article that gestures towards this, but it is not arranged to help the reader find it. Again, looking at articles that are more developed and doing more research will help you structure these sections. I would also suggest cutting down on the plot summary. We want the article to primarily be a description of the interpretations of the play rather than a plot summary. Plot summaries don't really make for interesting reading, anyway.
Thanks very much, Awadewit. I'll have to look for this book when it is published. (When I clicked on the link, it said "Not yet published - available from December 2007." I know that publishers tend to roll out things on different timeframes in different regions, so it appears to be not yet available where I am.) Again, thanks. --MollyTheCat (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is available. Academic books do not have different "roll out" schedules. There simply aren't enough buyers to necessitate such a thing. :) Awadewit | talk00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
First, good job on the work you have already done. The below will seem like criticism, but that's merely because the good parts leave nothing wanting. So please don't let these points disappoint...
Prologue - forgive me if this is a silly comment, but is this usually performed? In other words, in performances of the play, does someone normally get up on stage and read the praise? It seems to be addressed to the audience...
appears to confer with Lady Sneerwell - rephrase "appears", otherwise I was thinking "he only appears to confer with her, but actually they are..."
In general, you seem to have broken down the play in a very dry "stage directions" style, which is rather hard for this humble usually-prose-reading mouse to comprehend. I recommend rephrasing aiming at a reader, rather than giving all the "Act 2 (gezundheit); Scene 2 (and raised 1); enters; appears; exeunt omnes; exit stage left bearing bowl of fruit balanced on tip of nose" stuff. For example, you write "Mrs. Candour enters, and soon after Sir Benjamin and Crabtree, bringing a good deal of gossip with them. News of the imminent return of the Surface brothers' rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies is discussed, as well as Charles's currently dire financial situation." - instead I recommend something like - "They worry about Charles's dire financial situation, and whether the imminent return of his rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies will relieve it." as that is the important point, not when who enters in what scene, surely. You may also want to describe even more of the apparently important points - why is Charles's financial situation so dire?
"ruined by extravagance."; "the fashion," - are these very short quotes really necessary? Surely we can write that Peter thinks he will be ruined by his wife's extravagant spending, the exact words don't seem important enough to copy exactly, unless they became a catchphrase, or are often cited exactly or something.
Instead, how about including some quotes demonstrating Sheridan's wit? The reviewers go on about how witty the lines given to the characters are, but we don't have a single example. Surely there are some signature lines that immediately identify the play to those who know about it, we should cite a few of those. For example: "To be or not to be, that is the question", or "Wherefore art thou Romeo?"
Sir Peter praises Joseph's high morals, but Sir Oliver suspects that he may be a hypocrite, and decides to give the libertine and spendthrift Charles a chance - who may be a hypocrite? Peter, Joseph, or even Charles?
Lady Sneerwell confides to her servant Snake her plan to undermine Charles Surface's attempts to woo Sir Peter Teazle's ward Maria (with help from Charles' older brother Joseph) - Joseph is helping Charles, or Sneerwell? Again, recommend rephrasing with less stage directions style; we, the readers, care more about what happens, than how it is described to us. "Lady Sneerwell plans to undermine..."
Charles, entertaining his raucous dinner guests, raises a toast to Maria. - why is this particularly important now? It's established he loves her at the top of the plot. I apologize, but I find the whole plot section hard to read, there are so many minor events that seem to be unconnected, it's rather confusing. Can the less important ones be left out?
In comparing editions of the play, one will find several relatively minor textual differences. - "One" is jarring here. How about: "There are several relatively minor textual differences between editions..."?
Because, as one recent editor has put it, "The School for Scandal is the most intractable problem Sheridan set his editors," editions of this play can vary considerably. - Whoah! Just a few sentences ago it said the differences were minor!
It may be significant that in Johann Zoffany's portrait of Robert Baddeley as Moses, we find that - again, apologies for being so dense, but I don't understand why it is significant. And even if it is, how does some portraitist's mistaken impression of the play reflect on the play? If I draw a picture of George Bush with a cucumber up his nose, surely that reflects more on me than on Bush. Please explain.
But in the hands of a talented director and cast, the play still offers considerable pleasure." - just remove. That's a sentence that can be given about any merely good play, and this is apparently a great play, so it can be assumed.
Actors Ada Dyas - Irish actress as Lady Teazle - er - what? Surely she wasn't the only one to ever play Teazle. Was she the first one? If so, say so... and say also why that was particularly important. I personally don't recall that the first person to play Macbeth was that important. The John Gielgud line in the same section is much better at explaining this. --AnonEMouse17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback from other Misplaced Pages users.
Firstly, because I believe this article deserves some better attention and just basically needs improving. Secondly, to see if my edits (current and future) of the Today (Australian TV program) article could perhaps make this article become a Misplaced Pages:Good articles or a Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. I would also like to receive posts from others, on what they think about the article, what needs improving and change, and also what content is good to stay.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's deffinitely not FA material yet. It's clear for grammar, some copy-editing would be nice. More inline citations and expanding and/or merging of the shorter sections will be required. Otherwise, the page seems stable, though the images may need checking out (can't help with that, not an expert on the subject), neutrality and broadness also seem to be covered, and that's about it. Mind you, I'm not at all a frequent reviewer, but those are my thoughts. —May the Edit be with you, always.(T|C)13:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
put the refs after the periods, not before
it's 25th anniversary; However, it's rival Sunrise - remove the '; it's means "it is", its means "belongs to it"
The show also has regular daily Poll Questions and Hot Topic segments, which is a chance for viewers to send in emails, sms, and log onto the website and post their opinions. - wikilink or explain "sms", and for that matter explain more about this - does the show respond to viewers on the air in real time as each post or email is received, does it gather feedback over a dayrespond all at once on the next day, does it choose what to respond to, does it only respond to a few?
Why did Liebmann leave then return? That seems interesting enough to explain - more money, did he want to do more news and less fluff, did he not think the show would be successful?
"retire from the stresses of breakfast television" - breakfast television doesn't seem like it would be that stressful, it's not Fear Factor - want to rephrase? If he moved to a different show, specify; if he retired completely, specify that.
"Following her court case against Network Ten" - whoah - that's again something interesting that should be explained
"comments from the media and viewers that she should be sacked" - why? Because she laughed nervously? Specify.
"the female co-hosting duties" - does it say somewhere that there have to be one male and one female co-host?
in the early nineties, hosted by Tracy Grimshaw. Grimshaw was followed by Tara Brown - give some specific dates, please
due to budget cuts by the Nine Network, Today on Saturday was cancelled. - cite this important fact: who says that it was budget cuts, and not poor ratings, or some other reason?
"25th Anniversary" section - seems like a lot of space given to one show. Wasn't there a 20th, 15th, 10th anniversary show as well?
Many sections seem like lists of names, rather than just text. Understandably we need a few lists of names, but not this much. Flesh out with actual prose, please.
Competition - is Sunrise really the only competitor? What do the other channels air at this time?
While, in Melbourne alone ; Even though, the name - commas misplaced
In the last three years, - give specific years, we don't know if this will be magically corrected every January 1 from now on.
streetside studio - what is this?
Remove most or all of the "see also" section, they're better served by existing inline wikilinks in the appropriate sections. --AnonEMouse17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is not neutral in the slightest. It reads like a blatant puff-piece/hagiography/whitewash. Some specific points:
It seems as if distasteful information about "Osho" is pushed down into a "Controversy and criticism", whereas this info would be better off incorporated chronologically into the article itself, and expanded upon, instead of briefly mentioned in passing in couple lines.
The immigration violations are covered in one sentence. This was a major United States Federal Government investigation. This needs to be elaborated upon, instead of just skimmed over as if this was a minor incident. See , and , for some more info that is barely covered in the article at all.
Several legal cases and cases from United States Federal courts are not covered at all. These should at the very least be mentioned and summarized within the article. To name a few notable ones:
United States of America v. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, et al.
In addition to the bioterrorism attack, the first in United States history, which is only covered in eight words of the entire article, the other incidents listed briefly, (serious and criminal misconduct by the commune's management (including conspiracy to murder public officials, wiretapping within the commune, the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician), conspiracy to murder a United States attorney is not even mentioned or discussed at all.
In summation, coverage of the above extremely controversial issues is glossed over, and barely discussed. These sections of the article are grossly in need of expansion, unless editors wish for the article to read like a praising hagiography piece which lauds over its subject and skims over unimportant details like conspiracy to murder federal officials, and bioterrorism, all of which are heavily covered and available in both government sources, books, media/news, and reputable websites.
Having had a major hand in revising much of the article earlier this year, I have for some time been aware that it relies too much on direct evaluation of primary sources, rather than on the available secondary sources. So I had planned to re-write much of the article, based on the available academic literature. – As for the comments by Curt Wilhelm VonSavage above, the space given to Sheela's crimes in the article is roughly equivalent to the amount of space accorded them in the most recent scholarly treatment of Osho's life and work (Judith M. Fox, Osho Rajneesh). In this context, it should be noted that the American authorities never brought any indictments against Osho in connection with these crimes or even named him as a co-conspirator. To the extent that some of the crimes were directed against persons who enjoyed Osho's closest trust, that would have been absurd anyway (Sheela got twenty years for trying to murder Osho's personal physician, a man that Osho made one of the main administrators of his estate at the time of his passing).
This article has gone through various changes, since its last peer review and I am looking for further criticism in hopes of nominating it for FA. Any comments would be helpful. Thanks, Golem8899102:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much to offer but I wanted to give you something besides the automated review. What I'd suggest is a look at WP:CAPTION to add some weight to your photo captions (the photos are great, by the way). There are also some definite places that need more citations that should be relatively easy. For example, under Alumni Association, one of the 2007 inductees... there should be a news article or press release or something you can cite. I'm also questioning the origins for the name of The Collegian - a source would make it more convincing. Also, under Notable Alumni (and here and there throughout) there are very short paragraphs. As a rule of thumb, I usually suggest at least three sentences in each paragraph. Those are all just examples of some suggestions that can be applied throughout. Overall, though, it's a great article! I'm especially impressed by the breadth of sources - college/university articles tend to have difficulty finding third party sources, but this looks great. Keep it up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the wikipedians who have tried to improve the article, It's apparently reached A status. Now we need your suggestions before nominating it as a featured article. Thanks a lot. --Seyyed(t-c) 13:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not looked into the article too much but I did notice many areas with over-referencing. I understand the controversy of the subject and it is not a major issue but it makes the article harder to read, plus its unnecessary;two would suffice for particularly controversial sentences/passages. I will look into article some more soon. --Al Ameer son06:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just read this article (well at least the first half), and I found that it is remarkably neutral, a great achievement for such a controversial article. However it lacks in many things: akward article structure, missing important information, and too many lists. I'll try to give you some suggestions about how to improve it.
The "Background" section is odd and ill-defined. It starts with the current political situation of Hezb, then its social activities, then its history with Israel, then its relation. I think this section serves as a summary, but It is badly organised, and I don't think this practice is good.
There is no clear "History" section that presents how and why Hezbollah was formed and its development. Instead they are scattered throughout the article in the "Ideology", "Political" and "Military activities".
During the last years, editors of the article have found that this is a better way to describe the issue.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The "History" section should be divided as in the related article and describe briefly and in this order: The Origins, during the Lebanese civil war, 1990-2000, and after Isreali withdrawal.
"Political activities": I'd like this section to describe the political history of Hezb, why it decided to join the political life (unless you put it in the "History" section)
What this article really lacks of is the Lebanese views of Hezb and how it evolved, and this applies to each community. How it was seen by Shiites, how it was rejected by Christians, then gained support after Hezb-Aoun alliance, how the druze and sunnite community was supportive before March 14...
I think that this article needs a major revamping in order to describe a political, social and military organisation like any article describing a Western organisation. However, I cannot but appreciate the tremendous effort Wikipedians made to make this article as neutral as possible. Keep up the great work. Thank you. CG (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I've managed to add at least stubs to all the club's managers and want to further the article further possible towards a FLC. I want to know what else should be done to improve the article particularly towards references and the lead section. I reckon the article may also need a picture.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt12:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Quick comment before I have to dash off to a meeting - this sentence makes no sense grammatically: "Bradford City's first manager was Robert Campbell, who was succeeded upon the club's election into the league in 1903."ChrisTheDude09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
In general, prose is a bit choppy, too many short sentences. Perhaps a copyedit?
Sorry, you're right - it's a side-effect of the job creeping in. I've given it a good copy-edit hopefully it's better now? -- Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"Success in the final saw City and Luton Town swap places." - are you referring to Luton getting relegated and City getting promoted? I get it, others may not.
General reply. Thanks very much for the reply. I will try add some references to back up POVs and ORs or change the text itself. I'm in the process of adding stubs for Jim McAnearney & Tom Hallett but wanted to get the rest of the managers done first. And I agree about Soccerbase. I don't know the exact dates the managers changed so I can't corroborate the manager stats. I also have doubts about a lack of caretaker between George Mulhall and Roy McFarland but can't find any supporting evidence anywhere to say there was one. Peanut421:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I've managed to find references for them all. I will add stubs for Jim Mc and Tom Hallett too and I think I've addressed all the other comments. Though I need to go thru the stats to check Soccerbase, though at least I've referenced the stats to a verifiable source. Peanut4 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Angelo
There's really a load of work to do here. It's better first for you to expand this article as much as possible, following what the Manual of Style for football club articles suggests, and then asking for another peer review once you made it all. A prosed history section is probably one urgent things to do, together with an improvement in number of sources, whereas it is better if you remove the "notable players" list (why exactly these players and not others?).--Angelo13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Y done "later to its current appellation." - odd wording, and if it was renamed again then it should be cited.
Y done Try, if possible, to place citations immediately after punctuation.
Y done Date ranges should use en-dash.
"... was later purchased by Sanmarinese and Italian entrepreneurs." needs citation.
"San Marino Calcio is the only Sanmarinese team allowed to participate exclusively at the professional level in the Italian football league, though another team, A.C. Juvenes/Dogana, competes in the amateur levels." needs citation.
Y done History section needs expansion. Even though it's only been around since 1960, provide a summary of how they've got on in the past 47 seasons.
Y done In Club colours section, no need to continually repeat for every sentence, it's sufficient to use it at the end of the paragraph.
There's no history behind the colours section - why play in those colours?
"The sponsor of San Marino Calcio is Alfa Lum, also the sponsor of the Coppa Italia." citation needed.
Y yes Is current squad still correct (as of 8 December)?
Y done Cut the management section down a lot - mostly trivial positions in a club whose manager doesn't even have an article.
Y done some, working on it Notable players. Notable how? Check other football Featured articles for how this is best dealt with. A fork to a comprehensive list of players who meet a defined set of criteria (e.g. minimum number of appearances, club record holders, international players while at the club) is what I'd recommend. At the moment, this list is purely subjective.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative feedback on how it could reach GA-class and hopefully above. Now that the competition is over, it should remain relatively stable, with perhaps the odd bit of vandalism from a disgruntled Englishman or New Zealander. However, I believe that, with a few minor modifications, this article could reach at least A-class.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Lead: 'Of them, Portugal 'is the only World Cup debutant'. Is or was?
Lead: Doesn't feel like there's much about the tournament itself in the lead. Perhaps remove the bit about pool winners qualifying for the 2011 cup (which doesn't seem important enough for the lead of an article about the 2007 event) and put in more about the way the tournament progressed - the surprise packages and disappointing performances, perhaps?
Bid: I got confused right at the start! :(
Were England and France the only two nations to bid for the competition?
'The tender document for the 2007 bidding process was due out on October 31, 2001.' Is the tender document the 'Invitation to tender' (the document issued by the IRB requesting tenders), or the tender submitted by England/France? I wasn't sure from the context. Also, saying after the event that the document was due out on a certain date seems strange: did it come out on that date or not? If so, why not just say so. If not, the article probably needs to explain the change and the reasons for it.
Perhaps move the sentence 'Both England and France were invited to re-submit their plans' to the end of the first paragraph? I think the reader will follows the paragraph more easily if the ideas go in that order.
Bid: Regarding citing, I know views differ, but as you have used only one reference throughout the second paragraph of this section, I would strongly advise citing it just once at the end of the paragraph. It should be clear to readers that all information in that paragraph comes from that one source and it is far less intrusive. Some will tell you (and they are strictly following the rules) that you should also cite immediately after the two direct quotes, although I don't believe it necessary.
Bid:I would argue similarly for the first para: refs 1 and 2 are not really needed, since 3 confirms that both France and England bid. 3 (which would then be 1!) could also be used just once at the end of the paragraph.
Bid (2nd para): 'The tournament was moved to the proposed September-October dates'. I had understood from the preceding para that France's proposal of September/October had caused their bid to fall outside the IRB's parameters. Is this right, and am I further understanding correctly that the proposed change was then made anyway?
Bid (2nd para): 'French cities to host games are' Were?
Bid (but also 'Hosting'): Perhaps review how these two sections fit together regarding the inclusion of matches in Wales and Scotland. I assume from the article that matches in these two British nations did not form part of France's original bid? (It might be interesting to answer the question of whether such matches formed part of the England bit, btw). Is it possible to clarify why some matches were planned and/or played overseas? It might seem unusual to those unfamiliar with the sport. More precise timings for the announcements would add to this as well. Did any French cities lose out as a result? Any controversy about this?
Qualifying: This may just be nationalistic nonsense from me, but it seems that the then-reigning champions should be identified fairly early on in the article. Perhaps 'Reigning champions England and the other seven quarter-finalists from the 2003 World Cup received automatic entry...' at the start of the first para?
Qualifying: I know you've linked repechage, but I would briefly explain the concept in the article as well, for ease of comprehension.
Qualifying: Can you find some way of indicating which nations qualified automatically, without taking up too much space? Perhaps a footnote to the table of nations?
Qualifying: 'In July 2005, both Samoa and Fiji were confirmed' Both is redundant and can be removed.
Qualifying (2nd para): 'reaching the first place in its qualifying group' Is this redundant? Italy have already been identified as Europe 1.
I'll leave it there for now, but obviously I haven't got very far through the article, which seems to be clearly structured and written so far. Hope this is useful. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've stopped there on the basis that no-one seems to be interested in responding to or implementing these suggestions. You don't have to accept the points, but it's a waste of my time to continue if they are not even considered. Drop me a line if you want me to continue with the review. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A peer review has been requested for this article, as new information regarding the topic in question is being released on a daily basis. However, there is substantial dissent as to what information is truly relevant. Large portions of the article also make reference to short facts about the game that serve to be more trivial in nature than serving any other purpose.
Because the vast majority of edits are being made by fans of the game, I feel it is important for somebody who is not familiar with the game to take an objective review.
A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APRt02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend a hearty dose of patience and a conservative approach: The game's not due out for a good three months and nine days (at least here in the US), and some of the article isn't going to be written until then, particularly its reception. Nifboy17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Done - Article already contains a free-use public domain image from 
Additional information needed These are the actual article titles, so are you saying this is an Americanism? Is "World War One" acceptable, i.e. dropping the roman numeral?
Y done "later to its current appellation." - odd wording, and if it was renamed again then it should be cited.
