Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/April 2014

< Wikipedia:Peer review

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

2014 Laurence Olivier Awards

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is far less notice and information available on the highest theatre excellence awards in the United Kingdom, the Laurence Olivier Awards, especially in comparison to its American equivalent, the Tony Awards. I'm working through simply creating articles for the past forty years of awards without any information on them at all and they all could do with a wealth of new information (those I've already created and those I've yet to find time to create). I've nominated this page in particular at this time because I've attempted several times over the past years to get the Oliviers the same recognition on the main page in current events as the other major performance awards to try and include more than just the American hegemony. Hopefully, this article can get beefed up more so that by the awards announcement it can be ready to the main page and to also become a template for the other articles in the series.

Thanks, Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuon (DVD technology)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been expanding and improving the article daily. Aiming at getting the article to a higher class, and maybe, just maybe, featured. But realistically, I would like to have the current progress reviewed. I am gathering more references and am ready to take the article further, but would like your suggestions to help lead me in the right direction before I do so. I appreciate the help of anyone who drops by

Thanks, AustralianPope (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user who started this PR is a sockpuppet of Jakandsig, a disruptive editor who makes use of multiple sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakandsig/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakandsig/Archive. IX|(C"<) 05:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thopha saccata

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was at FAC for nearly two months and was not promoted after one support and no other comments. I was at a bit of a loss as to why there was so little interest other than to think that maybe it was a bit rougher prose-wise and just didn't engage. Anyway, if I look at it further I'll go square-eyed so am listing it for peer review. Feedback welcomed.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comments from Hamiltonstone

  • "Cicada is repeated three times in the first lead para. Is there any chance that "The largest Australian cicada, the double drummer is reputedly the loudest insect in the world." can be modified to read along the lines "The largest insect of its type / member of its genus / family / group / or something, the double drummer is reputedly the loudest insect in the world." Just to get rid of that final repetition?
I tried rejigging it and have gotten rid of one "cicada" - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They emerge from November until March and live for four to five weeks." Need to be clearer that you mean they emerge from underground, not emerge from, say, hibernation. Also, it's not quite right to say they live for four to five weeks - they were alive for several years before that, you only mean in this phase of their lifecycle. Needs tweaking.
I have tweaked it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "series of pulses emitted at a rate of 240–250 a second". Can you check this? Does this really mean 240-odd pulses of sound within each second (which suggests a strange repetition of extremely high frequency noises of short duration) or does it actually mean pulsating sound at a frequency of around 240-250Hz? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source says, "The pulse repetition frequency is 240-250/sec."...so, yes it is 240 pulses a second... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn
  • I am inclined to think that the lead doesn't quite grab the reader. The fact it was the first described Australian cicada isn't particularly interesting, but the fact it's the largest is, and the fact that it's reputedly the loudest in the world definitely is- it could even be moved to the first sentence.
I tried rejigging it and adopted a slightly unorthodox intro to make it more engaging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps change "genus name" to the more prosaic "generic name"? Same for "species name" and "specific name".
done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They still wrote of it as native to China" Slightly ugly construction
--> maintained? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1838, Félix Édouard Guérin-Méneville pointed out that the double drummer is native to Australia and not China.[6] John Obadiah Westwood designated it the type species of the genus in 1843." Perhaps consider merging these sentences? At the moment, it feels a little disjointed.
agreed the sentences are a tad short - would a run-on "and" be an improvement here? (have been criticised for using them before...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The proboscis is very long for Australian cicadas, measuring 1.26 cm (0.50 in)." A little ambiguous- do you mean to say that, compared to other Australian cicadas, this is long, or that Australian cicadas have long proboscis?
the former - clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a radius of curviture of around 25–45 nm" I don't follow this
It means the dome-shaped ends, if they were a circle would be that - see Radius of curvature (applications) - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The double drummer is larger and darker overall than the northern double drummer (T. sessiliba),[10] T. saccata having black head and body markings, and the black markings of the leading edge (costa) of the forewing extending past the basal cell, and lacking a white band on the abdomen." Perhaps split this into two sentences? It's difficult to follow at the moment, and the fact you switch from common to specific names is odd
sentence split - I hope starting after semicolon with "it" is unambiguous.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earsplitting" is a bit colloquial
yeah I wondered about that...but they really are *(%&%# loud! I was standing in my garden trying to take a photo of a greengrocer and my ears were really ringing....I was trying to make the article engaging and use a vivid word/descriptor. Am open to alternatives. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do they make the noise? What time of year specifically?
buckling of tymbal plates amplified by hollow abdomen and bagpipe-like sacs...simple really and added (should have added that before!). Cicadas are only out in summer, during which time they sing most of the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the nymphs look like? The eggs?
got eggs in...description of nymphs proving difficult to get.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What precisely are they feeding on? Wood? Leaves? Bark?
roots - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are then shoved into the hunter's burrow, where the helpless cicada" A little colloquial- perhaps stress that the cicada is still alive, though.
I concede that it is a tad colloquial, but I think that it makes it succinct and helps with the engagingness of the passage. I figured "helpless" carries the connotation that the cicada is still alive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the note about the poems is the best way to end the article- is there nothing else to mention, culturally? I'm not sure the poems even belong in the article, as they're not by anyone in particular?
There is precious little pop culture stuff apart from the fact they are popular with schoolkids, who used to catch them and keep them in boxes for a few days. I thought it added to the kiddiness of the segment, agree it is a bit stretching on the notability..but I felt it might be segment might be a bit thin otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say that the article looks a little cluttered, with a large number of images in a hodge-podge of shapes. Perhaps you could remove some of the images, or merge some together into multiple-image templates or tables (though I'd avoid actual galleries).
I took a couple out... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't get to this article while it was at FAC- hopefully you can build up some support here before taking it there again! J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Praemonitus. The article seems good to me. I have just a couple of minor concerns:

  • The first paragraph in the 'Description' section is overly long, making for tedious reading. I think this could be split into three parts.
Thinking about it..................where would you slice this para, though?. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused about the paragraph that begins "The double drummer is larger and darker overall...". Is the description following the semi-colon intended to apply to the 'former' or the 'latter'? I assumed the latter, but you might want to make that clear. If the former, why the redundancy with the first paragraph. If the latter, why is it darker when the description actually paints it as blacker?
It is the former - I will rejig. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations looked fine. Praemonitus (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winnipeg

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a Good Article that I've been working on over the past few days and I'm looking for suggestions for further improvements, with an eye to potentially taking it through FAC.

Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Canada Hky (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead seems really short for an article as long as this. I am not sure if the solution is to expand the lead, or to remove some of the excessive detail in the really short sections of the article.
  • The lead is repetitive: "Winnipeg's professional sports teams include..." and "Winnipeg's post-secondary institutions include...." "The economy includes..."
  • One sentence paragraphs in the culture section and in a few other places. Very short paragraphs in general, not much flow when reading.
  • The culture section is really extensively subdivided, and the subdivisions are really short. It makes the article quite choppy.
  • In the references, some of the weblinked news articles have access dates, some don't. This should be consistent.
Hey Canada Hky, I think I've resolved all of these except for the length of the lead - I'm not sure what else could be added to that, as it seems to touch on every section already. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Rights Act of 1965

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Any suggestions on how to improve this article (or any part of it) are welcome, whether they are big or small. For example, people taking a look to see if the article is written in understandable, non-jargony language would be welcome. But I don't mean to limit the scope of the review in any way; any and all constructive feedback on any aspects of the article would be appreciated. I recently worked to bring this article to GA status, and it would be fantastic to bring it up to FA next.

Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sneinton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently made some major changes, and I was wondering if anyone could give any feedback? Any thoughts at all that you could give - good/bad/room for improvement, etc. - would be very helpful. I'd really like to get Sneinton up to Good Article status at some point in the future, and I'd like to increase its chances of success. Any feedback you could leave would be really very helpful.

Thanks, Anxietycello (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stephenson

edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after writing a number of articles about historical railways, I thought I'd write a biography. I would like to get this FA; please let me know if you think anything is missing or the a section of prose really doesn't work. I have another book on order from my local library and I will make changes after I have read it and cross-checked what I have written here.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book, and will be reading it over the weekend. Edgepedia (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm now going cross-eyed and will take a break. I think I've covered everything, please review! Edgepedia (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm going to have to close this and take a wikibreak. Edgepedia (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albany, Oregon

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have put in a lot of time working on this article in the past and I would like to work to push it toward being a higher rated article with the eventual goal of it being a featured article. I have got a lot of the basic information in the article and now need help refining it from top to bottom to make sure it can reach the mark. If I could get it reviewed for what is seen as missing content, incorrect grammar, spelling and just general style. I appreciate all the help from everyone and I look forward to finally perfecting this article.

Thanks, MathewDill (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

edit

Right, will jot a few notes in passing...something to think about is aiming for Good Article status. Take a look at the Good article criteria and think about whether the article fulfils them and maybe nominate after this peer review. Good Articles can act as "stable versions" in case of vandalism or long term article erosion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the article is 73kb, the lead should be bigger - think of another 2- 3 factoids to stick in it.
The lead shouldn't have any references in it - all facts in the lead should be expanded upon or mentioned in the body of the text and the inline references located there only.
Watch for repetition in prose, see how I tried rejigging here to remove some redundant words. There will be some other examples. For some good reading, take a look at User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. I found these very helpful.

John Gielgud

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Along with Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud dominated the British stage for several decades of the 20th century. As Richardson's article has recently been promoted to FA, it seems right to try to do the same for his great colleague. Gielgud was primarily a stage actor in his first four decades as a performer, and did not take the cinema seriously until he was in his sixties. He worked in radio from the 1920s onwards, but came late to television. He was also much in demand as a director in the West End and on Broadway. I'd be glad of comments on whether I have adequately reflected the balance of the various facets of his career. And glad, too, of comments on prose, omissions, digressions or anything else. The article has much better images now than when I began a month ago, thanks to marvellous input from Loeba and Crisco 1492, and will shortly contain contains links to a comprehensive list of all Gielgud's roles on stage, screen and radio recently created by SchroCat, which is currently a was promoted to featured list on 24 March. Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

edit

Easily the best Gielgud biography on the net! High time this fellow had a working over IMO. Here are my efforts...

Early years

  • "The family tree included a famous Polish actress and actor, Aniela Aszpergerowa and her husband Wojciech." -- Who was the "famous Polish actress" you tease? If they were that famous, would they be worth a mention?
  • "His wife, an actress until her marriage, was a member of the stage dynasty..." -- I know you and I have plans, but is there a current Gielgud stage dynasty article we could link to?
    • Well there is (here) but it's pretty dreadful and I'm loth to encourage people to click out of this article into such a poor page. When we have our Terry family article up and running it will be another matter. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So as to differentiate between London (which we have spoken lots about) and Surrey which we now introduce, could we link Surrey for the visiting outsiders to the article so they don't think they're the same? Us country bumpkins would hate to be thought of as townies! ;)
  • "Both parents were keen theatregoers, but the idea of a stage career was not encouraged." -- For Gielgud presumably and not by persons intending for his parents?

First acting experience

  • In the third para, why do we repeat ref [27] in close succession?
Thank you – good stuff. Looking forward to more. Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After continuing to read, I notice that most of the other issues have now been covered by Cliftonian. Nice work Tim! Cassiantotalk 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cliftonian

edit

Know nothing about Gielgud apart from that he went to my school and that a swan was named after him in Adrian Mole. So will be interested to learn something actually relevant to the man himself.

Lead

Early years

  • I sang in the same choir when I was a kiddy—nice memories
  • "His father took the young Gielgud to concerts" since this is at the start of a paragraph I would recommend rephrasing to "The young Gielgud's father took him to concerts"

First acting experience

West End

  • "He had a partner for the first time" Seems like rather anachronistic terminology, frankly, and it took me a second to realise exactly what we were meaning to say. I appreciate the awkwardness of wording this but I would be astonished if either Gielgud or Perry ever referred to the other as his "partner" (except perhaps if they were playing tennis or bridge). I would consider perhaps instead making reference to Gielgud having his "first serious relationship" or something like that.

Old Vic

West End star

Queen's Theatre company

War and post-war

1950s – film success and personal disaster

1960s

1970s – Indian summer

Later years

  • "one performance he almost forgot them, momentarily distracted by seeing in a 1938 copy of The Times, read by his character, a review of his own portrayal of Vershinin in Three Sisters fifty years earlier." Good Lord!
  • "Peter Greenaway's radical adaptation of The Tempest" What exactly made it radical?
  • I think this last use of "partner" is acceptable as the term is conceivably relevant by 1999
  • "more than an occupation or a profession; for me it has been a life" Great note to end on.

Notes and references, etc

  • All looks okay to me

Sterling work as usual from Tim. Even as somebody with basically no prior knowledge, I found it interesting and enjoyable, and wonderfully well-written and engaging. The comments above are mostly just nitpicks. I enjoyed the article very much and found very little to quibble about. Thank you Tim for expanding my horizons somewhat with this fine theatrical piece, and well done. I hope these notes I made as I went through help. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent input, thank you Cliftonian. I shall enjoy going through it over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous stuff. Thank you so much. All taken on board except as mentioned above. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, as always a pleasure. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim posted on my talk page asking about the arrangements for Westminster School services in the neighbouring Abbey. I cannot comment with certainty exactly how things would have been arranged in Gielgud's time but when I was there about a decade ago all students regardless of religious affiliation attended mandatory Anglican services, simply called "Abbey", on Monday and Friday mornings. Even in my time these were rather impressive. Members of the school choir (like me!) sat in special seats in the centre and got to sing all the descants and so on. There were also services on or near the main Christian holidays but I seem to remember these were not mandatory and were not commonly attended by day-boys such as Gielgud (I believe at the time these might have been actually called "dayboarders" but this may have been before Gielgud's time). Many Westminsters have their confirmation in the Abbey and friends come to watch this as well. We also had a Latin Prayers service each Wednesday, and I seem to recall that these were once also on Saturdays—yes, we went to school six days a week—but these were not in the Abbey but "Up School", in the old original school hall. We had to say these in this bizarre-sounding special pronunciation we were told was "Westminster Latin" dating back to the school's genesis. I imagine this would also have appealed to Gielgud. Incidentally somebody has surreptitiously recorded Ad Te Levavi and Pater Noster and put them up on YouTube if any of you want an idea of what these Latin Prayers are like. I hope this is helpful. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cliftonian. Not only helpful but enchanting! It is now clear how it was that though young Gielgud wasn't in the choir stalls in cassock and surplice he was nonetheless a regular contributor at Abbey services. The biographers are vague on the matter, and once again Wikipedia comes to the rescue, with insider information. Tim riley (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

edit
Thank you very much, Crisco, for these comments. All very much to the point, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Lead:

Early years:

Down to end of "West End" so far, and enjoying this hugely. More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Vic:

  • " invited Gielgud join the company in the 1929–30 season": Should this be "for the 1929–30 season"? And is there a way to avoid giving "1929" and "1929–30" in the same sentence?
  • "It was, in Morley's words, the place to learn Shakespearian technique and try new ideas": Unless the quotation marks have gone AWOL, these aren't Morley's words!
  • "Exceptionally for the time, Williams's production gave the text without the traditional cuts.": Lost me a little here.

Up to end of "West End star"... Sarastro1 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950s:

  • "His cold, unsympathetic Angelo in Peter Brook's production of Measure for Measure (1950) showed the public a new, naturalistic manner in his playing, and he had great successes as Cassius in Julius Caesar, King Lear and, in London, again with Brook, Leontes in The Winter's Tale.": Quite a long sentence, and the commas make it a little hard to follow.
  • "For four months...": Makes me feel like I'm stuttering!
  • Do we need intext attribution for the long Huggett quote? Also, I'm possibly being dim but it does not seem quite clear to me at which performance or venue this took place. But I'm maybe being dim; it wouldn't be the first time!

Honours, character and reputation:

  • Just looking at the article on Ralph Richardson, which some chap wrote, I wonder if this section should be a level 2 section, like in Richardson.
  • Also in comparison to the Richardson article, this section feels a little light. Richardson seems to have more "critical commentary" and more personality. Having said that, I think Gielgud's personality radiates throughout this article, to the point where some of his opinions are laugh-out-loud funny. So the latter point may be moot.

General:

  • My only other thought is if we need to make it clearer how famous he was. It comes through, but should it be made a little more explicit? Otherwise, the balance looks pretty much spot on to me. Other than the section I mention above, the story bounces along quite merrily and I read the last parts in one session, without intending to.

And that's it from me for the moment. Another excellent piece of work which I think requires loud and sustained applause. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in your debt for this thorough and helpful input. Thank you very much, Sarastro. Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Loeba

edit

I'm greatly enjoying reading through this! Brilliantly put together, Tim. Some humble suggestions...

Lead
  • It would be nice if the first paragraph in the lead did a bit more to communicate how important/respected JG is (if there's any part of the article people are going to read, it's that!) You may disagree though.
Early life
  • We aren't told when he became "John" - was he always called by his middle name?
  • I'm never crazy about going into too much ancestral history - I rather feel like we could lose the mention of Anthony Gielgud and Aniela Aszpergerowa, for instance?
First acting
  • I think it would be worth mentioning his age here, when he joined the drama school.
  • "actor-manager" I think that should be an en-dash? God, you know you've spent too much time on wikipedia when you can recognise a dash from an en-dash! "poet-butterfly" as well
    • I think it would be unusual, and indeed I think wrong, to use an en-dash rather than a hyphen here. I've just checked in the Oxford English Dictionary, which uses a hyphen, not an en-dash for "actor-manager". Not wholly surprisingly the OED has no entry for "poet-butterfly". Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NDASH says hyphens should be used to "join components" whereas en-dashes are used "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between"..."Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning". Looking at the list of examples, I think "actor–manager" would definitely fit. I'm not sure about "poet-butterfly" though - is the "poet" there to describe "butterfly", or are you essentially saying "poet and butterfly"? Gosh I never thought I'd be the type to get hung up on these things, haha. --Loeba (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha, I looked closely and this is a similar example and they say to use a hyphen: "a singer–songwriter; not separate persons, so use a hyphen: a singer-songwriter". Gosh, it's so fiddly and specific! --Loeba (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
West End
  • "(or Trophimof in the translation used for the production)" - I would strike this as unneeded.
    • Yes, probably. I may have to unearth it if anyone starts getting didactic about some of my other old forms of Russian names, such as Tusenbach and Gaev, but will prune for now anyway. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We get the first mention of JG's homosexuality here - given the era, if would be interesting to know if he had any personal difficulties accepting his sexuality, if he kept it hidden from friends, etc. It might be best in the "character" section though; I'll leave it with you.
    • As far as I can recall the biographies don't say. JG was, naturally, reticent on the subject, but I don't get the impression he had any youthful angst about his sexuality. But I can't find anything citable on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Vic
  • "Gielgud was by no means the first West End star" - This feels a wee bit too much like biography talk, I'd prefer it more simple: "Gielgud was not the first West End star"
  • "Williams's production used the complete text of the play. This was regarded as a radical innovation;" - suggest "Williams's production used the complete text of the play, which was regarded as a radical innovation;"
West End star
  • We don't get a link to the Good Companions film.
  • "and shining a penetrating, not always flattering, light on Richard's character" - Needed in this article?
  • Was the Romeo & Juliet production the first time he and Olivier met? He's kind of introduced as if they'd already worked together, but there's no mention of that...
    • gielgud had cast the young Olivier in a supporting role in Richard of Bordeaux in 1934, and recognising his talent he came up with the idea of sharing the roles of Mercutio and Romeo in 1935. Gielgud rescued Olivier's career to a great extent. Olivier's article in the ODNB says that before this he had appeared in a string of commercial flops, had flirted unrewardingly with Hollywood, and had largely avoided the classics. Worth adding this, do you think? Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did JG say anything about his experience working with Hitchcock? I think it would be interesting to hear if so, but then I may be in a minority, heh.
    • He didn't much like working for Hitchcock, who made him nervous, and the experience put him even more off filming. (Morley, pp. 130–131). Again, I can add if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me it seems worth adding - Hitch is obviously one of the biggest names in film history and people may want to know a little more about JG's experience working with him (and from your comment here it sounds like it had career resonance). If you don't think it's needed I won't insist though. --Loeba (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TBC --Loeba (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Thank you very much for your thoughts so far. I expect to have this peer review open for a week or two yet, so there's absolutely no rush for your next set of comments. Tim riley (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Queen's theatre company
  • So was his company called the "Queens Theatre company"? And did they exclusively perform at the Queen's Theatre? I think these things could be made clearer in the text.
1950s
  • "Gielgud was fined." - Hmm, I wasn't crazy about how abrupt this is. It would read better IMO "Gielgud was fined [amount?] and the story reported in the press. [sentence about fearing end of career]".
  • "Between December 1953 and June 1955 Gielgud concentrated on directing and did not appear on stage." - Was this because of the arrest? Might be worth elaborating on.
1960s
  • Maybe the "film success" heading would fit better here than the earlier section? There actually wasn't much about films there but in this one he gets an Oscar nomination, and we're told that he starts to enjoy working in films more.

I was hoping to have time to finish but I'm afraid I don't - soon though! By the way, do you still want me to upload the Murder on the Orient Express image, or do you think there's not enough room? I'm still happy to do it if you like (sorry for taking ages to check about this!) --Loeba (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba, I place myself entirely in your hands on matters of images. If you think we can fit this one in without a squeeze then let's go for it. No rush whatever, let me emphasise. Many thanks for your points so far. I'll leave the PR open for another week or so, and if you have time to look in again I'll be very pleased. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just scanned over the rest of the article - I don't really have any complaints or suggestions, other than maybe indicating the success of Murder on the Orient Express, and the "Reputation" material is notably slimmer than that on Richardson's article(resting mostly on one individual's quote). It would be nice if it could be expanded, but it's also effective enough as it is and if no-one else has mentioned this than you're probably fine :) Really great work Tim, thanks for giving Gielgud such a top article! --Loeba (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssilvers

edit

Lead

  • Lead did not cover the honours section, so I added some overview/summary info. Please review
    • Looks good to me. Thank you for that. (I hate writing leads and am not at all good at it.)

Background and early years:

First Acting experience:

  • Did he earn a degree from RADA? You simply say that he left in 1923.

Early West End roles:

  • The "widespread interest in Chekhov" -- does this mean in Britain or worldwide?
  • I removed the word "plausible", which did not seem to add any value, but if it had a meaning, please clarify.
    • As I can't readily spot where it was before you blitzed it I think it safe to assume that we don't need it.

Old Vic:

  • Shakesperian is spelled also as Shakesperean. Should it be one or the other throughout (except perhaps in direct quotes)?

West End star

  • Should great-aunt (or great-anything) be hyphenated throughout? This is not the case in American usage, but I'm not sure about Br.
  • débâcle: I thought we were just writing "debacle" without the fancy foreign marks?
    • A borderline one, I think. I would say the word is still French rather than naturalised English, and Gielgud spells it with the aigu and circonflexe in the letter I allude to here. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Theatre company:

War and post-war

  • "Gielgud felt that something serious or even solemn was necessary for wartime London." Should we explain, at least in a note, that most wartime entertainment was light-hearted?

1950s:

  • Is "highly discreet" different from merely "discreet"?
    • There are degrees of discretion. I agree that adverbs should be used sparingly, but I think this one helps make the point that this was one hell of a lapse from his usual prudence. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1960s:

1970s:

  • Why is this called "Indian summer"? That seems to me to connote something unexpected in later years, while this seems to be rather business as usual for Gielgud....
    • It seemed to me (and I think the biographies confirm) that he got a bit becalmed in the late 1950s and the 60s, and had something of a fresh start with the new plays written for him in the 70s. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later years:

  • débâcle again?
    • Is it the spelling or the repeat appearance of the word that you are looking askance at?

Honours

An excellent biography, Tim, conveying the man's personality as well as his works and reputation. As always, please disregard anything you disagree with, and I hope you find this helpful. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some really excellent points there, and I'm very grateful. I shall enjoy going through them over the weekend. Meanwhile I've taken the hint and run up an article on Big Fish, Little Fish. Tim riley (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

A few very minor points on what is a fantastic article:

Background

  • "Frank Gielgud married into a family with wide...": not sure we need the Gielgud name there again
    • I've tried it without the surname and it looks a bit odd to me. See what you think now.

West End Star

  • The New York Times, Charles Morgan wrote, "I have never before heard the rhythm and verse and the naturalness of speech so gently combined. ... If I see a better performance of this play than this before I die, it will be a miracle."[83] Morley writes" Why did "Charles Morgan wrote", and "Morley writes", as both of them have shuffled off this mortal coil...
    • Fair comment. I think it's that Morgan's words were in a paper, no longer on general access, whereas Morley's are in a book, widely available. I'm not sure I can defend the logic, but "X wrote in The Times" and "Y writes in his 2000 biography" both seem right somehow. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950s

  • "Gielgud was fined." This seems a bit short and blunt as it stands. Perhaps merging into the press sentence that follows?

I've also made one or two very tiny copy edits: please revert if you don't like or agree with them. All told a wonderful article and look forward to seeing it at FAC soon. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat, for excellent input. We've given the old boy our best efforts, with your comprehensive list of roles and this biographical page. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.

edit

Apologies for the delay, I think you know the reason. Will look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
Background
  • "Jan Gielgud took refuge in England with his family.[4] Frank Gielgud was one of his grandchildren. The family tree included a famous Polish actress, Aniela Aszpergerowa." -three short sentences, would be best rephrased and put in one or two I think for flow.
    • Agree, and will do.
  • "In class, he hated mathematics, was fair at classics and excelled at English and divinity." I'd put a comma after classics here.
  • "and, in the music halls, Albert Chevalier, Vesta Tilley and Marie Lloyd" -perhaps "and Albert Chevalier, Vesta Tilley and Marie Lloyd perform in the music halls" would read better?
  • "The young Gielgud's father took him to concerts, which he liked, and galleries and museums, "which bored me rigid."" -not sure why this is relevant.
First acting
  • "and in November 1921 he made his debut with a professional company, though he himself was not paid." -he himself, why not, "though he went unpaid"?
  • "he made his debut with a professional company, though he himself was not paid. He played the Herald in Henry V at the Old Vic; he had one line to speak and, he recalled, he spoke it badly.[22] He " -"He" repeats on me a lot in this section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Old Vic
West End
  • "Returning to the West End, Gielgud starred in J B Priestley's The Good Companions, adapted for the stage by the author and Edward Knoblock.[n 6" -do we know in what theatres he appeared in this role?
    • We do, but I have been taken to task above for being too "listy", and I'm trying to keep details of theatres to a minimum. Again, for those who want to know the new list of roles has the details.
  • "Unlike his contemporaries Richardson and Laurence Olivier he made few films, until after the Second World War," -comma looks misplaced here "Unlike his contemporaries Richardson and Laurence Olivier, he made few films until after the Second World War" would seem to look better.
    • Yes. Will do.
  • "by Elizabeth Mackintosh (who wrote under the pen name Gordon Daviot). " -perhaps best to place this in a footnote.
  • "a Romeo and Juliet" - a Romeo and Juliet?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Gielgud opened at the Empire Theatre " -can you add "of New York City" or "New York's Empire Theatre"
Queen's
War
  • Link the The Heiress play? Saw the film the other day and enjoyed Ralph's performance!
1950s
  • "His cold, unsympathetic Angelo in Peter Brook's production of Measure for Measure (1950) showed the public a new, naturalistic manner in his playing. " unsourced, should have a citation otherwise it makes it look as if you're claiming it which would be POV.
1980s
  • " Chariots of Fire (1981), Gandhi (1983)," you might want to write the Oscar-winning and link to Academy Award for Best Picture. Also I believe Gandhi was 1982 rather than 1983.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won an Oscar as supporting actor" -link "Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor"
  • "To mark his ninetieth birthday he played Lear for the last time; for the BBC Kenneth Branagh gathered a cast that included Judi Dench, Eileen Atkins and Emma Thompson as Lear's daughters, with eminent actors such as Bob Hoskins, Derek Jacobi and Simon Russell Beale in supporting roles." - I'd say that the actresses were eminent too, I'd move eminent to before cast and remove it before actors.
  • Pope Pius V -link?
  • Gielgud died the following year, peacefully at home, at the age of 96. You may want to want date for quick reference.

A very enjoyable read. I know how difficult it is to adequately cover the career of such prolific actors who work in all mediums and I believe you've also done a good job providing the highlights of his film career. A little more film detail of his roles and costars etc in the 60s - 80s might be good but it's pretty good as it is. Great job on another very important actor. Look forward to seeing Olivier next. I last saw him in Sleuth (1972 film) and he really left me thinking "is this the finest actor I've ever seen".♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these excellent points, which I'll go away and attend to. You'll wait in vain for me to give Olivier's article an overhaul, I'm afraid. I considered it, but though the actor was superb I just can't get an handle on the human being. Meanwhile, I'm most grateful for your input on Sir John. – Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

edit

With such a wealth of thoughtful comment already available, I doubt that you need my grumpy jet-lagged mumblings, but I am reading the article anyway. Just one point so far, from the lead: "he made more than sixty movies". First, "movie" is either informal or an Americanism – either way, it jars. Also, to say that he "made" more than 60 films is rather misleading. He appeared in more than 60 films, though more usually in very small (and frequently delightful) cameo roles, particularly towards the end of his career. So I think this wording should be revised. More drippings will follow, but if you want to cut the review short I will not be in any way offended. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, suntanned and rested I trust. Grumpy mumblings will be gladly received when you are good and ready. I don't expect to close this PR for a week or so. The g. m. above is wholly to the point and shall be attended to. Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of my comments
Background and early years
  • "After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, and Val had done the same at Rugby School..." – "to Eton" with "at Rugby" doesn't work too well, and replacing "at" with "to" reads even worse. I have struggled with this, and come up with "After Hillside, Lewis and Val had won scholarships, respectively to Eton and Rugby..."
    • Yes, good. Will do.
  • I assume he was a member of the choir that sang in the Abbey, but you don't say so.
First acting experience
  • "J B Fagan": As you may know, there has been a recent furore over the formatting of initials in proper names. All I will say is that MOS states explicitly: "An initial should be followed by a full stop and a non-breaking space". (MOS:ABBR#Initials)
    • Good old MoS! As ever, full of mutually contradictory advice. We are also exhorted to use the most familiar forms of names etc, and full stops after initials went out of general use from the early 1970s in these islands. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering why The Wheel is given its author, but The Admirable Crichton and The Insect Play aren't? Is there a policy at work here?
Early West End roles
  • "The success of The Cherry Orchard led to a sudden, widespread interest in Chekhov. There was what one paper called a "Chekhov boom", and Gielgud was among its leading players." May I suggest a contraction: "The success of The Cherry Orchard led to what one theatre critic called a "Chekhov boom", and Gielgud was among its leading players."
  • "ecstatic reviews" – OTT?
    • Will change to "enthusiastic"
  • "Dean, a notorious bully" – such characterisations should be specifically attributed
Old Vic
  • "Richardson's notices, and the relationship of the two leading men, improved markedly when Gielgud, who was playing Prospero, helped Richardson with his performance as Caliban in The Tempest:" For clarity, I think The Tempest needs to be be mentioned earlier in the sentence, e.g. "Richardson's notices, and the relationship of the two leading men, improved markedly when Gielgud, who was playing Prospero in The Tempest, helped Richardson with his performance as Caliban:"
West End star
  • Perhaps say who the then 22-year-old Devine was, rather than relying on the link?
    • Good idea. Will do.
  • "extremely satisfactory" – beware the weasel superlative!
  • "...fiercely criticised his speaking of Shakespeare's verse, comparing it with his co-star's mastery of the poetry." Hmm, this is not a particularly accurate summary of the Farjeon quote; nothing "fierce" there, and countered by praise for "the fire of Mr Olivier's passion". Maybe other critics were harder on Olivier?
  • Again, "ecstatic"? Is this Morley's term? If so, this should be clear.
  • "...starring on Broadway for the first time" – I seem to recall that he had appeared on Broadway before (perhaps not in a starring role)?
Queen's Theatre company
  • "Gielgud invested £5,000..." etc: More information requested: what form did this investment take? Did he lease a theatre (the Queen's, presumably)? If so, for how long? Did he close the venture after just the one season? The first sentence of the third paragraph suggests that he did, but I see that he was playing at the Queens in 1939, with Edith Evans. Was this production under the auspices of Gielgud's Queen's Theatre company?
War and post-war
1950s – film success and personal crisis
  • The Way of the World should have an author, as per Venice Preserv'd
  • (aside): on the issue of his arrest, etc, I remember reading somewhere that the press was extraordinarily discreet in its reportage. No screaming headlines, one paper even describing Gielgud as a "clerk". Yet at almost the same time Lord Montagu was being mercilessly pursued on similar charges. I can only imagine that the oafish Maxwell Fyfe had never heard of Gielgud, and didn't think him worth pursuing.
1960s
  • You might think it worth footnoting that Gielgud's mansion at Wooton Underwood was subsequently acquired by T. Blair
  • Re. my comment on the lead, the word "movie" once again intrudes awkwardly (on several wincing occasions)
    • Right ho. Shall amend passim
  • As I recall, Gielgud had only a tiny part in The Loved One. He was King Henry IV in The Chimes at Midnight. Are either of these factlets worth mentioning?
  • "...but has since been recognised as "one of the best, albeit most eccentric, of all Shakespearean movies." Recognised as such by whom?
  • "One potentially outstanding acting role fell through in 1967 when Olivier, with whom he was to co-star at the National Theatre in Ibsen's The Pretenders, was ill." This is a little cryptic. What role are we talking about, and why did it fall through since it was Olivier who was ill?
1970s – Indian summer
  • On first mention, "Maugham" should be "Somerset Maugham"
  • "Hall found the play "extremely funny and also extremely bleak." Who is "Hall"?
    • He is mentioned in the previous sentence. Near enough, I think, to make the unadorned surname all right.
Later years
  • King Priam in Hamlet: I think this warrants at least a footnote in explanation, as Priam is not a character in the play. A bit of Branagh add-on, I presume.
Honours, character and reputation
  • No comments
Lists of roles and awards
  • I am a little uneasy about sections that contain no text other than a link elsewhere. A simple introductory couple of sentences, drawn from the lead of the "list" article, would do admirably.
  • Given the links at the head of each section that lead to the various sections of his career, would moving this link into the "Honours, character and reputation" section just above it work? - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit more of a list than I anticipated, though mostly minor niggles, suggestions or side comments. All told, an excellent portrait of Gielgud, whom I remember chiefly in his later cameo roles, e.g. Charles Ryder's father in Brideshead and the raffish Downs in Summer's Lease, each of which I am delighted to see gets a mention. Excellent work. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad I stayed for the grumpy mumbling encore. Some really helpful points in there, and I am greatly indebted. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Sorry about the wait, it slipped my mind. Here's what I have. We have a master writer to begin with and this peer review's well-turned ground, so perhaps it is not surprising it is not much. Wonderful article, and I always greatly enjoyed his work.

Lede
First acting
  • You say he was invited to tour the provinces in 1922. You might want to make it clear he actually did so, perhaps with some small details of the itinerary.
West End *
Queen's Theatre company
War
  • "but he found at first that less highbrow performers like Beatrice Lillie were better than he at entertaining the troops" perhaps it can be less elegantly but more bluntly stated that the troops were, in general, more attuned to less cerebral performances.
1950s
  • "He never spoke publicly about the affair" perhaps, "incident".
  • "avant-garde". In thé lede, you italicise and do not use a dash.
  • " in a larger role" cut as redundant. The first role (which to my horror, I don't clearly remember) is described as a cameo, and a role described as "Mr Barrett" in a play with that name entitled, is unlikely to be small.
    • Will do. The scene with Coward is a delight. JG is the valet sacked by Fogg for getting his bathwater to the wrong temperature. Coward is the snooty proprietor of the employment agency through which JG's character was engaged. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to keep him before the American public: he had not been to the US since his arrest four years earlier" Did he describe it in terms of his arrest? Since what's before the colon is clearly what Gielgud is stating, I see no reason not to assume what's after the colon is also from him. But given what you've said previously about his not discussing it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranevskaya of Ashcroft he had the best of the notices; Ashcroft and the production received mixed reviews" Perhaps the second Ashcroft could be changed to avoid the double usage. "his co-star" or some such.
Footnotes
That's all I have. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these points. A lot of really useful suggestions, for which I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, sorry for the oversight in getting to it so late. Glad it was helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report

edit

I'm away from home till next Wednesday, and can't complete all the outstanding actions I promised above till I get back to my bookshelves. Meanwhile, I am enormously indebted to the unprecedently ritzy roster of peer reviewers who have helped me with this article. I have just done a quick check and I see that (in alphabetical order) Brianboulton, Cassianto, Cliftonian, Crisco, Dr B, Loeba, Sarastro, SchroCat, Ssilvers and Wehwalt, the peer reviewers here have between them, at current count, a total of 259 Featured Articles to their credit. Was ever an article peer-reviewed by so many star Wikipedians? Thank you all! I expect to be at FAC in April and will be knocking at your doors. – Tim riley (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loring Air Force Base

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Good Article status, but want to make sure that there are no outstanding issues present before I do so. I have also addressed the issues of the Good Article review from a year ago, just so the reviewers are aware.

Thanks, Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Null comment, to prevent archiving. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Balling

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to either expand it enough to make it eligible for a DYK (though 5x is a pretty lofty goal) or for good article status. I want to know exactly how the lead and "research" sections (mostly the latter) should be structured in order for either of these (mainly the successful GA nomination, since there are only 2 days left to hit the 29440 bytes needed for the DYK). Thanks, Jinkinson talk to me 02:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has a potential for a good article promotion. It was nominated for deletion once and copyedited by a member of GOCE. I am looking forward for some suggestions on how to further improve this article.

Thanks and all the best, FairyTailRocks (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit
  • ...is a professional Filipino association football club, established in March 2000. - the team was established in March 2000 or the league was established then?
  • Cleared and fixed some few tweaks.
  • To this first sentence I would add "..club based in (wherever they are based)"
  • Added
  • ...when a group of football enthusiasts from Tacloban formed a weekly football practice. - I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
  • O-kay I think I get it - they played socially once a week (?)
I will try to add more additional information as I can. But right now, I will stay with the original sentence. Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Simbikangwa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on both the content and style. I've been editing for many years but only recently started creating articles. I'd like to make sure I'm barking up the right tree. Thanks, Mvblair (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Bullock Workman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article off and on for a few months to get it ready for FAC. Please review accordingly! Thanks in advance!

Thanks, Wadewitz (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of government of Russia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This list needs another pair of eyes, ideally someone who is interested in politics. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asheville Redefines Transit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article has probably moved up from the "stub" class, but it probably would help if there were some more seasoned eyes to look at the page and other specifics. Also, waiting on things like photos, etc. Thanks, Mindraker2 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mindraker2, here's just my 2 cents:
  • Per MOS:TIME AM or PM should be lower case. While you are doing this you could add a non-breaking space with &nbsp; between the digits and the letters, to stop the numbers appearing at the end of a line.
  • I'm English, but I did spend five weeks last year in the States. However, I really struggled to understand the sentence "Throughout downtown, buses operate fare free; the standard fare is $1 per ride." To me, this would clearer as "No fare is charged downtown, but the standard fare elsewhere is $1." Please ignore if I'm being slow this evening.
  • Per WP:EXTLINKS, external links should not normally be used in the body of article.
  • Funding—How about: "For the financial year 2012/2013, ART's operating budget was $5 million.[ref] The entire Transit Fund revenue is derived from three primary sources: federal and state grant funding ($2.8 million), local tax support ($1.2 million), and passenger charges." Having amounts to $1 precision is really not helpful.
  • You can use the {{fract}} or {{convert}} templates for the 3/4 mile. {{convert|3/4|mi}} gives 3⁄4 mile (1.2 km); useful as some countries don't use miles. Edgepedia (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought – what about the history of the service – what did it replace and so on ... ? Edgepedia (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, those suggestions are VERY helpful, and I am working on those right now. I'm going to look up what the changes of the service to see what I can type up on the wiki page. Thanks again for your help. 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've made a few improvements along Edgepedia's suggestions, mostly to get the external links issue out of the way. In general, this article needs more citations of secondary sources, instead of agency documents. The article's content should ideally reflect the topics that make this agency notable, interesting and that merit the creation of an encyclopedia article. We need to make sure we're doing more than repeating information that's otherwise available on the agency's website, like route/schedule information and their own description of their programs. Ibadibam (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you -- your improvements were great. I really appreciate your input. Mindraker2 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has potential as a Featured List Candidate. Would appreciate comments on all aspects, including coverage and layout. This goes along with the companion Jimi Hendrix discography. Thanks, Ojorojo (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much about featured lists, but I'd expect the prose text should be as well sourced as in a featured article? Now there are whole paragraphs without citations. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, FunkMonk. I approached the prose as the lead, which usually has little to no refs. However, some discographies have them, so now I have referenced everything (BTW, it wasn't referenced in the past[2]). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, leads are different, because the same info is found ion the article, therefore it doesn't need to be sourced. But if there is no article, it should be sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Đurić

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been improved substantially with new organised sections and references to remain as a start-class article. Subject of concern represented Bosnia and Herzegovina in canoeing at their first Olympics and went on to make a career in association football, becoming all-time league top-scorer and making his international debut in his late 30's. Would appreciate a review and areas to improve the article even further.

Thanks, LRD NO (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Convention

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I completely rewrote the article and like it, created new structure to reflect main periods and events. Tried to avoid personal opinion as much as possible, but present the passions of the time as well; and content is presented as various schools on the subject do ("classical", such as Lefebvre, so-called "revisionist" such as Furet, French as primary "authority" - Lefebvre, Soboul, Woronoff... - and in english-speaking - Thompson, Hampson, Jordan). Tried to be concise but some topics put in the notes when I thought it worth mentioning.

Thanks, Nivose (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kronan (ship)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I put the article together back when I was in my maritime archaeology phase. It's not as extensive as Vasa (ship) or Mary Rose, which kinda reflects that Kronan isn't as notable. But I also played it safe by nominating it for GAC rather than FAC. So quite simply: what, if anything, would this article need to pass as an FA?

Peter Isotalo 12:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "lasted 1668–72": lasted from 1668 to 1672
  • "delayed on account of difficulties": delayed by difficulties
  • "She began to founder, her powder magazine ignited": comma splice
  • "She began to founder, her powder magazine ignited and exploded, blowing off most of the bow structure. This caused her to quickly sink.": She quickly sank after her powder magazine ignited and exploded, blowing off most of the bow structure.
  • "along with valuable equipment": What kind of equipment? - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.[3] Thanks for the recommendations!
Peter Isotalo 18:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over the parts I feel qualified to comment on (mainly background and her military career). Some comments:
1. The background chapter seems to place unnecessary emphasis on the war of 1658, while there could be a stronger emphasis on the importance on the fleet for keeping contact with the overseas possessions.
2. This is minor, but if the name should be translated, it should be in the lede and not in the Military Career section?
3. The text can give the impression that the fleet was under the command of Claes Uggla in the battle of Öland. In fact, it was Lorentz Creutz (he is mentioned as Admiral of the Realm, but not that he was the actual commander). His inexperience should perhaps also be stressed more.
Andejons (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I'm looking at 1 and 3, but I'll just comment quickly on 2: the translation are in the first note. I'm personally not a big fan of cluttering the lead with translations and such.
Peter Isotalo 19:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) The war of 1658 was the immediate background for the Scanian War and the strategic position vs Denmark. Hence the attention. I'll look into covering the overall strategic necessity of a strong fleet. I wouldn't really compare it with a political background, though. It's more of an underlying issue for any state with overseas territories.
3) I've added some more info on Creutz and his appointment, as well as his lack of experience based on Glete. Check it out.
Peter Isotalo 18:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have nothing against relating that Denmark had lost a lot of territory and were looking for revenge, and the part about English and Dutch power politics is relevant also for this conflict. What I am questioning is the necessity for the details of the actual campaigns. (small quibble: 1650 is actually the point immediately after the zenith, which was in 1658). I'm also not sure if England and the Netherlands actually intervened on the behalf of Denmark in the first war (the Netherlands supported Denmark in the second part of the war). I think it could be improved by cutting some material, and trying to focus on the final outcome (Charles X Gustafs marsch across the belts is impressive, but not really relevant for Kronan). It should also be remembered that the Netherlands and England was probably rather pleased with Scania in Swedish hands, as it weakened the Danish grip on trade (cf. their actions during the Great Northern War).
3) It's a clear improvement, but I think it would be helpful to note under "Military career" at which point Creautz took personal command. As it is now, it says that Uggla took command sometime around 1675-1676, and there is a bit about Creutz having troubles with his officers, but it is not clear that he was actually with the squadron at this point.
Andejons (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yeah, the chronology was a bit off; fixed just now.[4] I think it makes more sense now, including the intervention from other powers. As a historical background, I don't think it would really benefit by cutting merely a sentence or two. The power shift between Denmark and Sweden is pretty relevant in the context of military and political history.
2) What exactly do you mean by "took personal command"? Do you mean acting as captain of Kronan?
Peter Isotalo 07:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think it would be enough to say that Sweden had in two wars tried to eradicate Denmark, which had ultimately failed due to dutch intervention (the English intervention, if one can speak of such, was AFAIK purely diplomatic), but that they left Sweden in possession of several provinces. The focus of the article is after all on a single ship, so the background should cover the general situation for navies (already there), Sweden's navy in particular (not mentioned), and finally, why Kronan went to war (which I think could be done just as well with fewer words).
3. I mean when he started commanding the fleet in person, rather than being merely the appointed highest officer.
Andejons (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'm not entirely sure it's all that excessive, but I'll keep your comments in mind for a future FAC. If the issue is raised there as well, I'll have a crack at condensing the info.
3) You mean when he crossed the line between strategic to operational command?
Peter Isotalo 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3) Yes, you could phrase it like that.
Andejons (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall reading a discussion about that. I think it touches on the issue of command structure and hierarchies in the 17th century compared to modern military standards. In short, I think they were far more diffuse. I'll see if I can find anything about it.
Thank you very much for the input.
Peter Isotalo 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some random observations
  1. This article reads like an essay. That's usually not a problem, but I find some of the excursions quite tiresome. The historical background is discussed repetitively in three different places. I would say there is some potential for condensing and shortening.
  2. I remember a discussion a few months ago on the WPSHIPS talk page whether to use she or it when referring to ships. The outcome was inconclusive but most editors preferred consistency within the article. In the lede Kronan is referred to as she, under Military career she becomes it.
  3. The article mentions that “Kronan has become the most widely publicized shipwreck in the Baltic after Vasa”. In the bibliography section, however, there are no publication after 2009. (BTW I came across Jan Glete Swedish Naval Administration, 1521-1721, ISBN 9789004179165, which discusses Kronan among others.)
  4. Wikilinks should be reviewed. E.g. Brandenburg links to the present-day federal state of Germany, whereas Brandenburg-Prussia might be more helpful. Also, the link to displacement makes the following definition superfluous.
So far for now. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, interesting comments:
1) Can you point to the paragraphs where you believe there is too much repetition going on? Essay-wise, is there anything else you feel is problematic? I should note that I prefer articles with engaging language, but without tipping over towards POV.
2) Good point. I think I've rooted I managed to root the inconsistent "it"s out now.
3) I'm not sure I understand the point of number 3. How is the most recent source in the list of refs relevant to claim you're quoting? Regarding Glete (2010), I'll add it to "Suggested reading" and see if it has anything more to offer. Thanks for the tip.
4) Also a good point. I'll look into it.
Thank you very much for those not-all-too-random suggestions. :-)
Peter Isotalo 17:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ad 1) The chapters on Historical context and on Military career overlap significantly. I see the need to give some background information on the Scanian War, but this seems a bit excessive to me.
ad 3) I am just wondering whether there are more recent publications available. I only came across one that meets the criteria for reliable sources (Glete). Einarsson's blog on the diving expeditions in the last few years doesn't, though. Unfortunately, my Swedish is not good enough to check for sources, but I presume there are more recent publications available.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I can't quite see where the overlap is if we're talking chronology. "Historical context" (renamed it "background" just now) covers background events until the outbreak of war, "Military career" covers everything after that. Is it the amount of detail?
3) Glete (2010) has some details on Kronan that I added. There's not really that much, though, since he's focused on organizational and administrative history. It's far more relevant to Swedish navy. I'm checking with Kalmar County Museum on getting hold of the two archaeological reports that have been published since the article was written. I don't think that much has happened, though. There's Under däck: Mary Rose - Vasa - Kronan ("Below deck") by Villner (2012) about life on board. I'll see if might have something worth adding. Other than that, I don't really know of anything of note that has been written specifically on Kronan the last few years. We're not talking Vasa, after all. :-)
Peter Isotalo 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not replying earlier, but I was busy in real-life. So far, I don't see anything terribly amiss. It's only that I'm slightly irritated by going back and forth between the grand picture and detailed information on the ship. The difference to the Vasa article, which uses the same structure, is that Vasa had virtually no service record, whereas Kronan sank in combat. It's probably just my personal taste that I would prefer concentrating on the ship rather than the era.
Looking over the article more critically, I picked up a few minor issues:
  • The 10 percent loss of naval manpower mentioned in the lede — is this figure based on the total complement or just the sailors?
  • When referring to the finding the wreck for the second time, relocated is probably not the best choice of words. If I am not mistaken, this would mean the wreck was moved from one place to another. I gather from the rest of the article, that the wreck is mostly still in place and only artefacts have been "relocated" to the museum.
  • In the last paragraph of "Historical background" it says at the end of June a Danish army landed in Scania. That's June 1676, isn't it?
  • In the section Causes of sinking it says "The direct cause for the sinking of Kronan was instability and inappropriate handling in rough weather." I would say, the direct causes of her sinking where the fact that she made water and lost her bow in an explosion. The reasons for this to happen may have included a general instability of the ship and incompetence on behalf of her commander. There was - hypothetically speaking - a chance (however slim) that Kronan could regain her balance up to the moment when her bow was blown of.
  • Finally, I am not sure whether use of % is appropriate here. WP:MOS is not very clear about when to use it and when not. I would prefer spelling it out, but again, that may just be my personal taste again.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made some reductions and carted off material to battle of Öland where I think it'll be more at home. I think the information as it stands now is reasonably focused on the ship while still providing a decent amount of background.
  • 10% (or percent (-; ) was my exaggeration. It was the percentage of the active battle fleet if combined with the losses of Svärdet, so I tweaked it to be less precise.
  • "Relocated" is now "rediscovered".
  • Yeah, the Danes landed in 1676, but that's out with the rehaul of the background info.
  • Point taken about causes. Fixed it.
  • I like "%" myself so I'll keep your comment in mind and see if others object as well.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to review the article.
Peter Isotalo 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

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

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

As far as I can tell, this article hasn't be reviewed in over four years by anybody!


Thanks, Besselfunctions (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricEnfermero

Just a few comments from the first few sections:

  • In the lead, some of the larger numbers are awkward as words.
  • Do we need to add III to van Rensselaer's name since I, II, and III all appear to be notable people?
  • In the history section I would specify what role (congressman I think) van Rensselaer held when he organized the school.
  • "The fact that the school..." - might start that sentence with "Eaton's reputation allowed the school to..."
  • "strongly resembled a graduate school more..." - I think you can get rid of strongly.
  • First sentence under Since 1900: move "for the fourth time" to the end of the clause.
  • Under Campus, I would clarify "gradually moved to the hilltop".
  • Under Postwar expansion, get rid of "interestingly". The last sentence there is also pretty long.

Good luck! May come back and try to leave more. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 08:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public Sphere Pedagogy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… A couple of us have been working on this article for the last few weeks. Looking for feedback in terms of quality, WP style, and areas needing expansion or improvement. Thanks, Ryanx7 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mvblair

As it is, the article is very insular, although it would appear to be noteworthy. It has a lot of unapplicable jargon that could be cleaned up. It's got a lot of original research, and should probably be tagged as such; I wonder if the editors aren't actually involved in the origins or practice of the topic of Public Sphere Pedagogy. It reads a little like a research project for a class. The connections between PSP and Town Hall Meetings, The Great Debate, and The Student Voices Program need to be made clear because there is no explanation about what those three things are. There is no need to emphasize specific words in the article through italics. Other than that, the article seems to have some good sources, even if they are insular, and seems to be relevant to a circle of regionally-based education theoreticians. Mvblair (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winkler County nurse whistleblower case

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am thinking of attempting my first FA nomination. I'm concerned that the article might be a little thin for FA. The article reflects negatively on several living people, so I want to ensure strong referencing and NPOV. I placed this under Social Sciences and Society because I think its largest implications are in the area of ethics.

Thanks, EricEnfermero HOWDY! 07:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the PR bot archived this because it hadn't had comments in three weeks, but I'll leave comments anyway because I assume you still want them.

Lead
  • Some of your prepositions are awkward. For example "that centered on the retaliation upon two nurses" and "Arafiles spoke with the sheriff of Winkler County".
  • This is a bit awkward: "Arafiles alleged that the nurses were engaging in harassment with their reports to the medical board." How about: "Arafiles alleged that the nurses' reports to the medical board constituted harassment."
  • "In the aftermath of Mitchell's trial, Arafiles, several county officials and a hospital administrator all faced jail time for their roles in the retaliation against the nurses." No serial comma used here; make sure style is consistent throughout the article.
  • "Texas law included remedies against retaliation for whistleblowers" I'm unclear about the definition of "remedies" here. Does this mean only that you could claim damages of someone retaliated, or were there laws disallowing retaliation? Those seem like different things.
  • "but no known U.S. state had whistleblower laws that address appropriate prosecutorial conduct" Should "address" be past tense like the rest of the sentence?
  • "The TMB stopped investigating anonymous complaints about physicians in September 2011." Does this sentence have a causal relationship with the one before it? If so, make that clear.

Be back later with more. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • I think "registered nurse" is worth wikilinking and/or explaining; there is significant ignorance about the different types of nurses. Verify they were actually RNs.
  • The second para seems to skip over some details. If Arafiles trained in Buffalo and Baltimore, what brought him to Texas? Did he do his residency there? If not, where? The license restriction narrative seems backward to me; it would be more logical to describe what he did, and then say as a result, his license was restricted.
  • "Arafiles' care"?
  • "Arafiles was alleged to have performed a skin graft on a patient in the emergency room despite not having surgery privileges at the hospital" What is the source for this? It doesn't seem to be covered in FN 9.
  • Doing a random check for close paraphrasing on FN 9, I find that the article text is much too close to the source text. Review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for advice on this.
  • "The letter said that the nurses feared losing their jobs if their identities were revealed in connection with the complaint." This needs some work on grammar and details. Letters don't say anything, they "read". Also, according to the source, the letter read, "I am hesitant to place a signature on this information." Which nurse is the "I" in this case? This detail suggests that one of the nurses penned the letter with the intention of it being from both of them.
  • Reading the source at FN 1, I see more close paraphrasing (cf. "shared responsibilities for the role of medical staff coordinator for the hospital." (source) and "split the responsibilities of the medical staff coordinator position." (article)).
  • Your source at FN 11 actually provides some detail about who actually wrote the letter; you've omitted this detail from the article.
  • "Arafiles became aware of the complaint" How?
  • The last para is a bit disorganized and inaccurate. It is important to establish the reasons for Roberts' actions insofar as they are known, but the source provided (FN 11) doesn't establish that they were friends. It just reads, "The sheriff, an admiring patient..." This detail is present in other sources you've used, so make sure to get the right citations for the facts you are presenting.
Termination and criminal charges
  • More close paraphrasing: "He also said that the nurses didn't seek patients' permission when they sent medical records of 10 patients to the board." (source) vs. "He also noted that the nurses did not seek permission from the patients whose medical records were sent to the TMB" (article)
  • Another awkward preposition: "began to raise awareness about the plight of the nurses." You raise awareness of something.
  • "The ... jury deliberated for about one hour before reaching their verdict" (source) vs. "The jury ... deliberated for around an hour before acquitting her." (article)
Aftermath
  • "He resigned again in October 2010." Did it work that time?
  • More detail is needed on Tidwell. "Similar charges" is not really enough information to make sense of why he would receive jail time and fines, after we've read only that it was perhaps an ill-advised prosecution.
  • FN 24 isn't working.. check all sources for broken links.
General
  • I'm not too satisfied with the source coverage of the relationship between Arafiles and Roberts. Some sources say they were friends, one says "golf buddies", one says they didn't really know each other. I think you'll need to include text indicating that the relationship remains unclear and that sources disagree on how close they really were.
  • Obviously close paraphrasing is a huge problem in this article, and I think you'll need to go through each source, compare it to what you've written, and adjust accordingly. As I mentioned, review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for advice on how to spot and fix it. Word substitution isn't good enough for paraphrasing; you have to rewrite the whole concept in your own words.

Hope this helps. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Fanny Bullock Workman

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it was written by our dear departed User:Wadewitz, who was unable to continue her first PR for this remarkable article. This article is exemplary, and an example of the high quality of work she modeled for the rest of the WP community. She would've wanted it to be thoroughly reviewed, and brought to each stage of the process before FA, so to honor her memory, I'm resubmitting it here.

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

edit

I have carried out a prose review, together with a little copyediting on minor issues and typos. I could have made a few more fixes, but I in general prefer that these be considered by the editor or editors that are assuming temporary stewardship of this article, so I have listed them here. I haven't looked at reference formats, but that can just as well be done at FAC if/when the article is nominated.

  • Lead:
  • Although "Himalaya" is correct, the more normal form is "Himalayas" which is what I think most readers would expect to see (certainly from a UK perspective). It is worth considering this change.
I had this question when I reviewed this article, and Wadewitz's response was that the correct usage was "Himalaya". Perhaps someone with a bit more expertise can give some input?
I'd be inclined to trust Adrianne's judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These early books about their bicycling tours were quite popular." A somewhat indeterminate passing observation, of no great value. Suggest remove.
I think that this statement refers to the discussion in the text about how the Workmans' travel books, which were less technical and scientific, were more popular than their mountaineering narratives because they felt compelled to include scientific information in them to appeal to organizations like the Royal Geographical Society, which made them less accessible to the general public. I don't think that this specific information belongs in the lead, but what if we added something like: "Their early bicycle tour narratives were better received than their mountaineering books."
That is a much more definite statement, and I'd say OK to use, provided fully supported in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is, so I went ahead and made the change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third para: "they escaped to the Himalaya". The first mention of the subjects in a new paragraph should be by name or specific designation, not pronoun. Hence "the Workmans" or "the couple", not "they".
Done.
  • Close repetition of "struggled" in the third paragraph should be avoided
Done.
  • Early life
  • The tripartite wikilinking of "Pilgrims", "Worcester" and "Massachusetts" is a trifle confusing. I assume the meaning is the Pilgrims' Colony of Worcester in Massachusetts; if so could the links be rearranged to make this clearer? And do we wikilink US states?
I've fixed it; I'll let someone else chime in about wikilinking states, but I'm inclined to keep it as is.
  • "Jenny Ernie-Steighner argues..." I'd probably change "argues" to "asserts" or "suggests", since "argues" implies that the point was disputed.
Changed to the simplest "stated". ;)
  • Move to Europe and cycling tours
  • "due to" is a formulation best avoided; I'd make that "In 1889, the Workman family moved to Germany, citing William's health."
I agree.
  • The second sentence needs neither parentheses nor "however"
I changed it a bit further, by combining the first two sentences like this: "In 1889, the Workman family moved to Germany, citing William's health, although Pauly speculates that William's health may have been a pretext for the move as he recovered "surprisingly fast".
  • "as one scholar has put it" – the unnamed scholar's comment is not individually cited, but I take it that it is covered by [12], which cites to Luree Miller. If this is so, "one scholar" should be replaced by a specific attribution to Miller.
Done.
  • the wording "in her book about women explorers" is unnecessary
Actually, I disagree, since it provides the qualification.
  • "As Stephanie Tingley writes in her encyclopedia entry..." I changed this formulation, which I believe is weak, but was promptly reverted. The problem with the present form is that, rather than simply reporting what the writer says, we are making ourselves complicit with the writer's view, which is against the principle of neutrality. For this reason I have always deprecated this usage in featured article prose, and I think the point is worth reconsideration.
I dunno. I mean, I can't access the Tingley source in either Amazon.com or Google Books, so I can't confirm if it's non-neutral. I'm inclined to trust that the inference is a valid one, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing he neutrality of the source, nor the validity of the statement. This is merely a question of neutral presentation within our article. To me, the formulation "As Stephanie Tingley says..." carries a silent corollary: "and we agree". We should report what the source says, without the compromising "as". Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. This is what I did: "Stephanie Tingley writes in her encyclopedia entry on Workman's travel writing that Workman described an "implicit feminist criticism..." Hmm, I wonder if this formulation--using "as" in this way--is common in much of academic writing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you have now is fine. I'm not sure whether the "as" formulation is common in scholarly articles. But scholarly articles are not the same as encyclopedia articles - they can take standpoints, agree with or refute other scholars, etc. We are bound by rules of strict neutrality. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the Jungfrau"; it is not clear what this phrase is an addition to – was Fanny one of the first women to climb both the Matterhorn and the Jungfrau, or did Taugwalder and Whymper make the first ascents of both the Matterhorn and the Jungfrau? If, as I believe, the former is the case, a little rewriting for clarity is required.
This is what I did; please tell me what you think: "She also was one of the first women to climb the Jungfrau and the Matterhorn. Peter Taugwalder, who had made the first ascent with Edward Whymper, was her guide up the Matterhorn."
Excellent Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cycling tour of India
  • I'd probably say Burma rather than Myanmar, which was not in common use before 1989
Okay.
  • Labor issues
  • Karakoram here, but Karakorum earlier. Both are correct, but spelling should be consistent
Used "Karakoram", since that's the spelling the Workman source uses.
  • "The most serious problems were labor problems, however" – repetition, and the "however" looks tacked on. Perhaps "The most serious problems arose over labor".
Done.
  • Mountaineering in the Himalaya
  • "It was after their first trip to the Himalaya that the Workmans became entranced with climbing and mountaineering." A little journalistic, not the best prose. Suggest remove "It was" and "that" from the sentence.
Done.
  • "Over the span of 14 years..." It would be helpful to have a date range for these 14 years
This parallels how the Adventure Journal source puts it, so I'm inclined to keep it as is. The source does say that they took their first trip in 1898, so if this is important to you, I suppose I can change it.
  • "They reached an 18,600 feet (5,700 m) summit, which Fanny named Siegfried Horn after her son, giving her an altitude record for women at the time." Needs some reorganising to avoid the impression that the naming gave Fanny the altitude record.
My attempt at correcting this: "They reached Siegfried Horn, an 18,600 feet (5,700 m) summit that Fanny named after her son, which gave her an altitude record for women at the time." Is that correct?
Not quite. I suggest: "They reached an 18,600 feet (5,700 m) summit, giving Fanny an altitude record for women at the time. She named the summit Siegfried Horn, after her son". Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is so much better, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Pauly writes..." – above comment applies
Not sure what you're asking for here. Pauly is used extensively in this article, and this isn't the first time he's quoted.
It's the "as" that bothers me, as explained above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her talk was even mentioned in The London Times. The newspaper is The Times, not The London Times, and the "even" is a bit wide-eyed for an encyclopedia
Done.
  • "As Isserman and Weaver explain history of Himalayan mountaineering" – the words "in their" are missing after "explain"
Done.
  • Pinnacle Peak and altitude record
  • The Pinnacle Peak climb needs to be dated (or at least given a year)
Done.
  • "Isserman and Stewart" should be "Isserman and Weaver"
Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As both Fanny and William had now climbed above the 23,000 feet (7,000 m) mark (they believed)..." I think this should be tweaked; the parenthetical qualification comes too late. I suggest something like: "Believing that they had now both climbed above the 23,000 feet (7,000 m) mark , Fanny and William 'moved to establish themselves as the foremost authorities on thin air'."
  • "As Pauly explains" occurs twice in the paragraph
Got 'em!
  • Hispar and Siachen Glaciers
  • The mention of "Italian porters" rather raised my eyebrows. Access to the source might explain what they were doing there.
The source talks about how the Workmans hired porters from Italy instead of the local porters they couldn't get along with, something that's mentioned earlier in this article. How about: "They were the first to explore its many side glaciers; the maps created by the Italian porters they hired helped map the region for the first time."
Slightly different, to avoid "maps...map": "They were the first to explore its many side glaciers; the Italian porters they hired helped map the region for the first time." Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Workmans' exploration of the Rose Glacier and the 45 miles (72 km)-long Siachen Glacier in Baltistan around Masherbrum in 1911 and 1912 was "the crowning achievement of their careers" as it was "not only the longest and widest subpolar glacier in the world" but also "the least explored and least accessible" at the time." Two glaciers explored: to which do the "longest, widest, least explored" descriptions apply?
I'm somewhat certain the confusion is that "Siachen" means "Rose"; Miller seems to use the names interchangeably. I think we should remove mention of the Rose Glacier.
That would seem to be the best idea. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 mile length mentioned twice in quick succession
I could either remove the 2nd occurrence, or I could replace "45-mile glacier" with "Siachen".
Fine - up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later life and death
  • "After their 1908 trip..." – a rather loose description for a trip that lasted several years, at least until 1912.
How about if we changed it to: "After completing their explorations of the Hispar and Siachen Glaciers..." or is that too repetitive?
  • "Royal Geographic Society", previously (and correctly) referred to as the Royal Geographical Society
Fixed.
  • A mention of when William died would be appropriate in this section
Actually, I was curious about that myself, and then are some conflicts about the exact date of William's death, although Isserman says that William lived until he was 91. I imagine that Wadewitz omitted this information on purpose, although the image of her monument that was added today states the date of his death. I think that's probably enough.
  • Can we clarify whether she left $125,000 to each of the four named colleges or as a shared bequest?
Not sure that we can; the sources that support this amount aren't accessible. I think that this is a case of needing to AGF.
  • Women in climbing
  • "as one scholar put it" – that pesky anonymous scholar again
Fixed.
  • "As she puts it..." – suggest reconsider
Done; went with the simpler "Colley states..."
  • "In her encyclopedia entry about Workman, Tingley..." As we know that the encyclopedia in question is the Dictionary of Literary Biography, perhaps say so.
Done.
  • Exploration of the Himalaya
  • Regarding Isserman and Weaver, the phrase "in their history of Himalayan mountaineering" has already been used, and is unnecessary here.
Removed phrase. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think one general area that could be strengthened is a more specific dating of certain episodes, but in general this is well up to Adrianne's standards of writing, and I read it with considerable sadness. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Brian; I'm sure that Adrianne would've appreciated it as well. Yes, I feel you, I've been sad as I've worked on this as well, but what a wonderful way to honor her memory. Should I go ahead and submit this to GAC, or does anyone else want to chime in? Personally, I think it's more than ready. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'll get much by way of further comments at this peer review. My peer review was to FA standards, and I'd have no hesitation in sending it straight to FAC where I think it will do well, but if you wish to use the GAN stage, then by all means nominate it there. A shoo-in, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article is already FA-quality, but it's already been established that we should honor Adrianne's wishes and get as many reviews as we can. I'll close out this PR, and then submit to GA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wisp (Sonic)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed GAN at the end of last month and I'm interested in taking it to the final step. I considered taking it straight to FAC after whatever quick comments WP:VG could offer, but @Sergecross73: pointed out that the subject has a particularly obscure role in gaming (Wisps are literally items from two Sonic the Hedgehog games and a single throwback-style level of a third one – to be clear, though, their notability is well-founded per copious third-party sources), and the article uses a table that could be seen as crufty, so I'd better overprepare as feedback could be particularly harsh from the get-go.

I tend to overly specify which kinds of comments I want most at peer reviews, which may stifle discussion of truly pressing issues, so I'll only say this: I would rather not scrap the table entirely, as numerous Wisps' names, abilities, and appearances are referenced elsewhere in the article such that full incorporation of this information into the text could bloat it or take the reader on too many tangents. With that said, there may well be ways to condense the table.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CalvinK(talk): I have had a good read of this article and I had no knowledge of the subject matter. As you are looking to potentially take it to FA nomination, I have used the FA criteria to base my review. This should not be taken as a definite pass for FA once the issues have been corrected - the ladies and gentlemen at the FA review are much more experienced than I am.

Some things to think about are as follows:

  • "They debuted in the Wii/Nintendo DS game Sonic Colors in 2010, where Sonic can use them as power-ups while he rescues others from Doctor Eggman, who plans to use them for a mind control ray." To me this is a very difficult sentence and could do with being tidied up a bit. It might be worthwhile to break it into two longer sentences just to make it a bit clearer. Other than that, the lead paragraph is good.
  • That table. I appreciate what you're saying about it and at this time can not think of any way around it. I would certainly give a very brief few sentences in that section before the table, perhaps something along the lines of "there are x different types of Wisps".
  • Sources are good. Reception section is balanced.
  • Media is non-free but adequate rationale has been placed.
  • Stable article

It is an engaging read and I felt it was well written. I would say all you need to is tidy up that sentence in the lead, and do something about that table (at the very least add a sentence in that section!) and it should be OK at FA Nom.

Done and done. I hope I can count on your support, possibly after some further comments, at FAC when it happens, which should be soon. Tezero (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor (Elena Paparizou song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to I would like to see if the article needs any improvement on anything. The article is written mostly by me.

Thanks, Dimitris  talk 20:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on structure

edit

The article would benefit from sections that proceed more chronologically. For example:

  • Background
  • Composition
  • Lyrics
  • Recording
  • Releases
  • Critical reception
  • Charts
  • Performances
  • Awards

Also, it may be better to limit the song competition information to its own section or the Performances and Awards sections. More overall focus on "Survivor" the song rather than "Survivor" at the song competitions would help. Hope this is useful. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urania's Mirror

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been a long time since I've taken an article to featured article, but I think this one has a decent chance: It uses good sources; I think it's pretty well-written, its illustrations definitely improve it, and, buy the time I take it to FAC, I expect to have a full set of images. So, what does everyone think? All advice is appreciated. Thanks, Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Casliber has an interest in constellations, and Chiswick Chap has written a lot of articles about historical works of science- perhaps they would be good people to talk to if you haven't already. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's frustrating all the different computer monitor screens, looks funny on a widescreen but I guess there isn't much we can do about that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be a little bigger given the size of the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the Dingley paper has some more info on Bloxam, which might be good to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a delightful, quirky subject. I'll help if I can. The only thing that immediately struck me was that if Bloxam was an 'assistant master', he must have been one of many, i.e. "a" not "the", as every teacher was an 'assistant master' except the head and perhaps the deputy head! Good luck with it. Feel free to ping me if you think I can contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on stage this week with Princess Ida; I'll get to work on this Sunday, during my recovery day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Let's have a look at this. I think I'd rather spin Bloxham off into his own article, to avoid too much here. As for expanding the lead - never quite sure what to put in it in addition to what's there. Any suggestions? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Up Baby

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article in the last year and a half, including a great Copy Edit and I would like to see it continue to improve. It has consistently gotten poor feedback on the quality assessment page. I attempted a peer review a while ago and got no takers. Hoping to find someone this time.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wadewitz

edit

I'm going to read the article in more depth but my first question is why there is no "Themes" or "Style" or "Genre" section. There is a lot of amazing film criticism about this movie and very little of it is used to flesh out this article. If you look at Blade Runner or Mulholland Drive, you will see what is possible with a film article. So much has been written on this film, that a really great article is possible! Wadewitz (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the rest of the article, I feel like all it needs is some good copyediting. Here are some spots I noticed:

  • The film tells the story of a paleontologist in a number of predicaments involving a woman with a unique sense of logic and a leopard named Baby - What does "unique sense of logic" mean?
  • Nichols and Wilde began a relationship during their collaboration, and went on to write other screenplays together. - Unclear what kind of relationship - clarify it is a writing partnership.
  • In general the lead feels too long and detailed. I would suggest taking out about half of the material. Summarize more. It is not important to put in all of the details about the reception, for example.
  • In the "Filming" section there are quite a few sentences that repeat information from previous sentences. For example, Beginning at the Arthur Ranch shoot,[25] Grant and Hepburn often ad-libbed their dialogue; production was delayed as the two stars ruined shots by making each other laugh.[26] The scene where Grant frantically asks Hepburn where his bone is was shot from 10 am until well after 4 pm because of the stars' laughing fits.[27] The film was further delayed, and after one month of shooting Hawks was seven days behind schedule. During the filming, Hawks would refer to four different versions of the film's script and make frequent changes to scenes and dialogue.[25] Some delays were caused by Hawks' leisurely attitude on set; on several occasions he shut down production so cast and crew could see a horse race,[27] and he took twelve days to shoot the Westlake jail scene instead of the scheduled five. - In this passage the idea of delay in introduced in almost every sentence as is the idea of filming - you can remove a lot of these phrases and words.
  • Hawks and Hepburn had a confrontation one day during shooting. While Hepburn was chatting with a crew member, Hawks yelled "Quiet!" until the only person still talking was Hepburn. When Hepburn paused and realized that everyone was looking at her, she asked what was the matter; Hawks asked her if she was finished imitating a parrot. Hepburn took Hawks aside, telling him never to talk to her like that again since she was old friends with most of the crew. When Hawks (an older friend of the crew) asked a lighting tech who he would rather drop a light on, Hepburn agreed to behave on set. A variation of this scene (with Grant yelling "Quiet!") was incorporated into the film. - I'm wondering if this can be summarized instead of narrated.


I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wade for your input. I've given this an edit and in my opinion it now meets GA criteria but might need a minor copyedit in part which I've requested. I gave the lead a significant trim and reworded in parts. GAs don't need masses of critical commentary and I've looked in google books and am content with the coverage it already has.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that GAs do not need lots of critical commentary, but this article has no sections devoted to the topics I mentioned. If you check the MLA and JSTOR databases, for example, you will find some good articles. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what experts think is important about a topic and film critics definitely think that genre and themes are important. This article even points out the importance of this film in the evolution of the screwball comedy, so making that more prominent by making it a section is vital, in my opinion. Wadewitz (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access, can you suggest some sources and I'll get somebody who does to email me them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Swaab's book will probably has a good deal of theory on the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to it, do you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going away for the weekend but will get you a list and send the articles when I return! Wadewitz (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On her behalf, here's a short list of analyses of the movie's themes and characters:
  1. Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage by Stanley Cavell
  2. Madcaps, Screwballs, and Con Women: The Female Trickster in American Culture by Lori Landay
  3. Different, Except in a Different Way: Marriage, Divorce, and Gender in the Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage by Heather Gilmour in the Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 26-39
  4. A Proper Dash of Spice: Screwball Comedy and the Production Code by Jane M. Greene in the Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Fall 2011), pp. 45-63
I hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't know, the day after posting the "when I return" comment, Ms. Wadewitz suffered critical injuries during a rock climb, and died on April 8th.[5] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Onel5969

edit

Okay, there are a few issues in the lead section. First, section needs copy editing. Second, the statement is made that the script was written specifically for Hepburn, but there is no citation, and in the body of the article this is not only not supported, but contradicted (when Lombard is the first actress considered for the role). Third, the discussion of it having the reputation of being a flop gives the tone that this is untrue. When a film does not break even, it is a flop, and the article should not indicate otherwise. If it was a critical success, yet still a flop at the box office, that should be indicated. Finally, there are no citations in the lead section, which is okay, if the material is mentioned elsewhere and there cited. However, for example, the claim is made that the film started to gain popularity in the 1950s when it was shown on TV. Nowhere is this fact backed up.

The plot is all right, although it relies a bit heavily on parenthetic exposition. You might want to consider getting rid of the actors names in the plot section. This is a matter of style, but in other film articles, the plot reads better when not broken up by the actors' names. The section also needs copy editing

In the D&W section, it begins with several uncited assertions. There are several other facts in this section which have no citations (e.g. the food taster Ali). This section really needs copy editing.

The Casting, Filming and Post-production sections are fine, but need some slight copy edit work.

The first line of Reception is redundant, the same point having just been made in the previous section. The first paragraph reads like the film had good reviews, then there are 1 positive, 1 mostly positive and 1 negative review. Which to me gives the indication that the film had mixed reviews. I think you either need to list other publications which gave it a good review (don't have to quote them), in order to show that the preponderance of the reviews was positive, or you need to change the wording to mixed reviews. And again, copy editing.

The Legacy section lists several "all-time" or "best-of" lists, but is missing citations to those assertions. It also needs a bit of copy editing.

The section on "gay" is well done, bringing up both sides of the discussion, with appropriate citations.

I hope this helpsOnel5969 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a contradiction. When Hawks first bought the rights to the short story he considered Lombard. The subsequent script was written for Hepburn.
I do not believe that anything in a lead necessarily has to be cited and anything in the body of the article is referenced by citations, even it those citations include more than one sentence.
The film was considered a flop and eventually broke even after a few years. Flop is a subjective word anyway and it was certainly financially unsuccessful on its initial run. I don't see what the problem is at all.
EVERYTHING is cited. Just because several sentences are sourced from the same page doesn't mean that every individual sentence must be cited redundantly.
Wadewitz, I look forward to more comments from you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm... sorry you feel that way. Regarding Hepburn/Lombard, that's not how the article reads, particularly since the casting section is subsequent to the development/writing section.
  • Second I never said that anything has to be cited, but the one example I gave, regarding it gaining popularity in the 50s is not cited in the "Legacy section". If footnote 34 is for the entire paragraph, then you should delete one of the two citations, as right now it looks like your citing it for those two points, and not for the initial statement. Since it's a hard copy, and can't be simply clicked on (which is not a negative by any means), I couldn't verify what was being cited).
Again, your terminology "reputation as a flop", suggests that it wasn't. Flop is not a subjective term. If a film makes money, it's a success, if it loses money, it's a flop.
And finally, not everything is cited. e.g. there are no citations for the Entertainment Weekly and Total Film claims (I'm pretty sure that wasn't mentioned in the Premier Magazine citations... which are the only citations for that paragraph). In the d/w section, I see your point regarding all of those assertions being on page 4 of Mast's book, and later on page 6.
I'm guessing you don't think it needs any copy-editing either.Onel5969 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not need to be cited. Agreed with Deoliveirafan, what needs to be sourced is sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote it as a FA. Please give me suggestions.

Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Based mostly on the first few sections:

  • Dead link
  • Quite a few citations in the lead - see WP:LEADCITE
  • Quite a few harverrors in references - you might find User:Ucucha/HarvErrors helpful
  • You're mixing different varieties of English - should pick one and use it consistently
  • Several of the bottom navboxes use redirects to this article - can these be changed to direct links?
  • File:Portrait_Gandhi.jpg: when/where was this first published? Any image using a tag that bases copyright status on time since publication, publication date, or country of first publication should include this information - check the others
  • File:Gandhi_and_Kasturbhai_1902.jpg: source link is dead, need to demonstrate pre-1946 publication to show that it's PD in the US. Same with File:Gandhi_South-Africa.jpg
  • Several media have dead source links
  • File:Gandhi_Graffiti_San_Francisco.jpg: if the uploader is the photographer, he does not have the right to release the 2D artwork being represented under a free license
  • File:Gandhi_at_Darwen_with_women.jpg needs a different licensing tag. In general, look at cleaning up image licensing
  • "Gandhi's father was Hindu Modh Baniya and his mother was from Pranami Vaishnava family" - you will likely need to elaborate for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the subject
  • "to study law at University College London, where he studied Indian law" - redundant
  • "observe the precepts of abstinence from meat and alcohol as well as of promiscuity" - as written, this could be read as "observe the precepts of promiscuity" - I think you mean abstain from promiscuity?
  • "The community adopted this plan, and during the ensuing seven-year struggle, thousands of Indians were jailed, flogged, or shot for striking, refusing to register, for burning their registration cards or engaging in other forms of nonviolent resistance. The government successfully repressed the Indian protesters, but the public outcry over the harsh treatment of peaceful Indian protesters by the South African government forced South African leader Jan Christiaan Smuts, himself a philosopher, to negotiate a compromise with Gandhi. Gandhi's ideas took shape, and the concept of Satyagraha matured during this struggle" - source?
  • Check capitalization - for example, "Boer war" should be "Boer War". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redtigerxyz's comments
  • The lead needs to be rewritten. UNDUE given to Partition in para 4

Redtigerxyz Talk 05:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers of the RMS Titanic

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
There have been a couple attempts in the past to grant this article/list a featured article status but there have been some various issues that needed to be fixed. I submitted a peer review request a few years ago but got too busy in real life to focus on everything that needed to be done. In the meantime, the article has had a lot of improvements, but probably still some things that need to be fixed before it can be taken into consideration for featured status. I'd like to submit a fresh peer review so I (and others) can work on improving what needs to be improved based on the current state of the article.

Thanks, Morhange (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen I of Hungary

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it to FA status. I would especially appreciate comments of its comprehensivness.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hchc2009:

  • I enjoyed reading it - great work.
  • General point. The article makes lots of reference to sources (e.g. "the chronicle of X says that Y happened to Stephen"). Sometimes it is clear that this is important, because it then notes that there are conflicting views. Often there are no other views given. For an encyclopaedic article, I'd advise making the minimum reference to sources necessary - unlike an academic history text, the typical reader doesn't need to know the source unless it's important to the narrative. Indeed, it leaves the impression that the historical statement might be dubious ("why is this article telling me the source, unless there might be something wrong if it? What doesn't it just say "Y happened to Stephen"?) I've highlighted some examples below of where I was a bit concerned by this.
  • The other points are most detail points, with the FAC discussion in mind.
  • " descended from the prominent family of the gyulas." - is the capitalisation right here? I only ask because the linked article puts it in capitals.
  • "who was supported by masses of pagan warriors" - "masses of...warriors" felt a bit informal - I'd have expected something like "large numbers of pagan warriors" or something like that.
  • " He defeated Koppány mainly with the assistance of Vecelin, Hont and Pázmány and other knights of foreign origin," - this could be read as meaning that Vecelin, Hont etc. were of foreign origin, or that it was the "other knights" who of foreign origin. I'd recommend "with the assistance of foreign knights, including Vecelin, Hont and Pazmany,".
  • " He ensured the spread of Christianity among his subjects with severe punishments." - punishments for what...?
  • "The date of his birth is uncertain..." - at the start of a section, I'd recommend avoiding a pronoun, and instead give his name.
  • "The unanimous testimony of his legends and other Hungarian sources," - "legends" is quite a specific term (it doesn't mean "legends" as in "fables", but rather a particular primary source) and needs defining when its first used.
  • " the Hungarian chieftain with jurisdiction either in Transylvania" - should this be "an Hungarian chieftain"? (unless there was a special particular lineage of chieftains who held this jurisdiction)
  • "Stephen's Lesser Legend adds that he was born in Esztergom" - feeding on from the point about legends above, the typical reader won't know what the Lesser Legend is.
  • "However, Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention of the event" - worth restructuring slightly; the first half of the sentence gives the impression that Adalbert wrote the Legend.
    • Thanks. I added the adjective "St" before Adalbert's name: I hope it clarifies that he is the subject of the legend, whose author (Bruno of Querfurt) is mentioned in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He was given his baptismal name in honour of the first martyr, Saint Stephen." - probably needs a reference.
  • "Stephen's Legend, written by Hartvik, " - as per above - is this the Greater Legend, Lesser Legend, or something else? At this point, most readers won't really know.
  • "According to Stephen's legends, Grand Prince Géza convoked an assembly of the Hungarian chieftains and warriors when Stephen "ascended to the first stage of adolescence",[16] when he was 14 or 15" - is the quote needed here? (given that you give the age specifically?)
  • "György Györffy also writes, without referring to his source, that Géza appointed his son to rule the "Nyitra ducate" around that time." - does it matter that he doesn't refer to his source? (i.e. if he's reliable, that's fine - I'm not sure if you're qualifying it because this might be dubious)
  • "György Györffy" - probably worth being consistent with how you use the surname or first name surname.
  • My apologies for the shorthand! In the early years, György Györffy starts off as "György Györffy", then "Györffy", but returns to "György Györffy" again. In the "reign" section, he is just "Györffy", but becomes "György Györffy" in the Coronation section that follows. My advice would be to expand to name surname the first time a person is referred to in a section, and then just their surname afterwards. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slovak historians, including Ján Steinhübel and Ján Lukačka, accept Györffy's view and propose that Stephen administered Nyitra (now Nitra, Slovakia) from around 995.[20][21]" - does this mean that other's don't accept this view? (if so, let's say so; if not, then I'm not sure that we need to specify the proponents)
  • "Stephen soon convoked an assembly to Esztergom where his supporters declared him grand prince" - I wasn't at all sure about the "convoke" verb here.
  • "Stephen's ascension to the throne was in line with the principle of primogeniture of Christian monarchies which prescribed that a father was succeeded by his son" - male primogeniture is not that a father is succeeded by his son, rather that he is succeeded by his eldest son, which certainly wasn't universal in Christian monarchies at this time.
  • "However, it contradicted the traditional idea of seniority," - different grammars have different approaches to using "However..." at the start of a sentence; my usual advice would be to avoid it, given that many oppose its use in this way.
  • "most of his partisans were pagans" - partisans in this context, given that there's a rebellion going on, could mean either "partisan fighters" or simply "supporters" - probably worth choosing a different noun.
  • "Even so, Györffy says that Oszlar ("Alan"), Besenyő ("Pecheneg"), Kér and other place names," do we need to specify the proponent of this argument? (i.e. do others disagree?)
  • "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword"" - it's unclear from the text here who this quote is from.
  • " In the battle between Veszprém and Várpalota," - I had to check back to work out that these were places, rather than people (which is what the "between" would normally suggest).
  • "Koppány himself was killed on the battlefield" - you don't need the "himself" here.
  • " implying that Stephen accepted the emperor's suzerainty" - the MOS would have this as "the Emperor", as the title is standing in for a specific individual (see WP:JOBTITLES).
  • "from the pope, but not without the emperor's consent." - "Pope" and "Emperor"
  • " states that the king offered Hungary" - "the King"
  • "The new king " - King
  • "The contemporary Annals of Hildesheim[79] adds that Stephen converted his uncle's "country to the Christian faith by force" after its conquest" - is the source essential here?
  • "The Illuminated Chronicle narrates that Stephen "led his army against Kean, Duke of the Bulgarians and Slavs whose lands are by their natural position most strongly fortified" - ditto?
  • " Forts serving as county seats also became the nuclei of Church organization." - I wasn't sure of what "also" meant here.
  • "ensured that the Western borders of Hungary" - I don't think "Western" needs a capital letter
  • "On the other hand, the alliance between Hungary and the Holy Roman Empire brought Hungary into a war with Poland " - could be "On the other hand, Hungary's alliance with the Holy Roman Empire brought her into a war with Poland" (potentially shorter and avoid repetition)
  • "According to Leodvin, the first known Bishop of Bihar (r. c. 1050 – c. 1060), Stephen allied with the Byzantines and made a military expedition in order to assist them against "barbarians" in the Balkan Peninsula." - is the source important?
  • "According to the Annales Posonienses, the Venetian Gerard was consecrated as the first bishop of the new diocese in 1030" - ditto
  • "plundered the lands west of the river Rába" - I think the MOS would have this as the "River Raba"
  • "Stephen's biographer, Hartvic" - needs a comma after Hartvic
  • " the king, whose children died one by one in infancy" - "the King"
  • " the elderly king" - King
  • "The Annals of Altaich narrated that Stephen disregarded his cousin's claim and nominated his own sister's son, the Venetian Peter Orseolo as his heir.[149] The same source adds that Vazul was captured and blinded; his three sons, Levente, Andrew and Béla, were expelled from Hungary.[149] A report, preserved in Stephen's legends, of an unsuccessful attempt upon the elderly king's life by members of his court indicate that Vazul was mutilated for his participation in the plot." - do the sources matter?
  • "Although the Illuminated Chronicle narrates that Stephen "begot many sons"" - ditto
  • The following family tree... - the formatting of the family tree didn't work on my screen. (not sure if this was a quirk of my system or not!)
  • "Stephen's "balsam-scented" remains were elevated from the coffin, which was filled with "rose-colored water", on 20 August" - unclear from the text where the quotes are from
  • "A certain youth, all his limbs weakened, suffering paralysis for twelfe years..." personal opinion, but I found the quote a little distracting from the flow of the text.
  • "He was also a "confessor king" whose cult was sanctioned, in contrast with earlier holy monarchs, without suffering martyrdom." I know what you mean here, but the "sanctioned...without suffering matyrdom" don't quite pair up. How about "sanctioned... even though he had not suffered martyrdom"?
  • "Stephen's intact right hand (Hungarian: Szent Jobb" - is the Hungarian translation really needed here? (i.e. does it just mean "right hand"?)
  • "Why is it, brothers, that his other limbs having become disjointed..." - again, personally, this didn't work for me
  • " writes that the king" - "the King"
  • "My dearest son, if you desire to honor the royal crown..." - again, as a stand-alone quote, I found it a bit disjointed
  • " representing the king" - "the King"
  • References. Personally, I thought the different styles for referencing primary and secondary sources rather distracting(at first I thought it was a mistake, until I realised the pattern). It is not breaching any MOS rules that I'm aware of, but my honest advice would be to use a common referencing system for books. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few random comments:

Thank you. I agree. However, I do not have access to the reliable sources cited in the above article. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for duplicate links, there are quite a few in the article
I checked, but I think only WLs which are mentioned in the lead and in the infoboxes are duplicated. I guess it should not be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs should all be formatted identically (most use the sfn template but some don't - for instance, citations to the Laws of King Stephen of Hungary)
Thank for your comment. I think the article uses a consequent reference method, by distinguishing primary sources and secondary/terciary sources. As I mentioned above, I understand it does not contradict to WP policies. Please also take into account that this diferentiation is not unique: scholarly works almost always make a difference between primary sources and other works. (Otherwise, the sfn-template could hardly be used when referring to the Laws of Saint Stephen and other primary sources.) Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the works in the Primary Sources actually primary sources? Because they look like secondary sources to me (given that they all have 20th century publication dates).
Scholarly works often refer to this kind of literature as "primary sources". Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem fixed. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem fixed. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sztjobb.jpg - You may or may not know the answer to this, but how likely is it that the uploader actually took this photo? I ask because it's a low-res photo that looks like it came from a Google image search, and it seems unlikely that the relic would be exposed for someone to get that close of a picture.
Photo in the article changed. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images in general:
    • it's generally best not to force image size, since you can't know what resolution is best for all users (and 190px is a generally useless size to force anyway, since 180 is the default for thumbed images)
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make sure to use the "|upright" parameter in tall photos
Sorry, I do not understand what "tall" photo means. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also watch image placement - images shouldn't sandwich text (as the two paintings currently do in the Early years section)
Thank you. I tried to fix it. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully these are helpful. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your remarks and suggestions. I will comment them in two or three days. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gate to the Northwest Passage

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I seek feedback from other contributors, specifically about three pieces of content that are currently being debated. I submitted a request for comment two weeks ago, but have received no feedback and figured this might be a better route. Please see the article's talk page for discussion. Apart from feedback about these three blurbs, I appreciate general feedback before I nominate it for Good article status. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voyager 1

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its been a two time GAC and one FAC but failed. I am hoping to take the article to FA level.

Thanks, Herald 12:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

edit
  • Right - I would go for GA first as a stepping stone.
  • Make sure you've either done everything requested at the three reviews or given a good explanation as to why not done.
  • i.e. still some references are bare urls.
  • Per EL policy, any external link which doesn't add to the understanding of the topic over and above what the article can provide should be removed. (i.e. keep ones with videos or copyrighted content that we couldn't use and remove others)

Megadeth

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to get it to FA status. Any suggestions regarding copy editing, ideas about expanding the article, or anything that will improve it are welcomed. Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi there- I'll do my best to give a full review at a later point (though I don't have as much time for Wikipedia at the moment as I sometimes do) but I think some time devoted to the NFC in the article would help prepare it for FAC.

  • File:Megadeth - Rattlehead.ogg is slightly high in terms of bitrate. Per WP:SAMPLE, 64kbps will normally be sufficient. The rationale could also do with expansion; the "n.a."s should be replaced.
  • File:DaveMustaine1991.jpg should be removed. It's a very large non-free image of a living person. Even if the performance is very important, how Mustaine looked during it surely isn't. The lack of copyright information (original source, photographer, copyright holder) is also very problematic.
  • File:Symphony of Destruction clip.ogg has only one (vague) rationale for two uses. Each use requires a separate, specific rationale. Further, the sample should be reduced to 64kbps and a maximum of 10% of the song length; in this case, 24 seconds.

Fixing these issues now will save problems at FAC! J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Admittedly, I haven't worked on music articles in years, and when I did, it was on a bunch of No Doubt album articles with Escape Artist Swyer, who did most of the work. That said, I'll try to take a closer look at this article later anyway. No major issues jump out at me from a quick skim, although I'm not fond of the sentence "Megadeth is one of the few American underground metal bands from the 1980s that achieved mass commercial success" - I mean, every band is underground at some point, and when they achieve mass commercial success, they no longer are. Tezero (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - need to get rid of fluffy sentences like, "This album, along with touring worldwide, would aid in bringing Megadeth to public recognition." I don't know Megadeth that well so can't comment on comprehensiveness too much. Will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"they both examined about 15 drummers because they wanted to get a drummer who possessed unique skills." - ummm, what "unique" skills?
Thanks for pointing that issue. I modified the sentence and I think it reads better now. Just to ask, is it "comprehend well" or "well comprehend" the more accurate way?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All are accurate - just depends what flows more easily - I actually prefer this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - I wonder whether adverbs "easily", "readily" or leaving out an adverb altogether would be preferable. I don't know the background well enough to suggest others with confidence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "well" is a better solution over the other two. What actually worries me is the overuse of the term thrash metal in the "legacy" section. Any proposals on how to resolve this?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - the "responsible for the genre's development and popularization." segment is unneeded as it could be folded into "creating the core of thrash metal" - I would have done it myself but am not sure how it would gell with the source. Agree it is very tricky here to reduce thrashes.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit Casliber, the paragraph definetely reads better now. I've also intended to shake that section a bit, but haven't thought of that idea.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the key is to add a little - maybe some bands that have cited them as influences? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put that on my to-do list. Are there any other issues regarding the prose and its comprehensiveness?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Josh, in your opinion, is the article near FA status with the current illustrations? If not, do you have a suggestion on what else should be uploaded? And regarding the samples, I would really appreciate your help in reducing the audio quality because I have zero experience in doing that.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an article have problems at FAC because of a lack of illustrations, and, in any case, this has plenty. Concerning the freely licensed images, File:Megadeth 1986.jpg could do with an English description, but the rest look completely fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since there are no other comments, I'm going to close the review. Thanks to everyone for the input, and hope that this will do well in the FA nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clif Magness

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first Wikipedia article, and I have a conflict of interest.

Thanks, Brentclemens 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

List of SpongeBob SquarePants cast members

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get this to FL status. I would like to hear some comments on the whole article's prose (if you find some problems or awkward wordings, etc) before nominating it at WP:FLC so it can be fixed. Thanks in advance for taking time to review this article. :)

Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no real experience with FLC, but I'm happy to have a look through and offer some thoughts.

  • "upon the cancellation of Rocko's Modern Life." It would be good if you could provide a bit more context on why this was relevant. "upon the cancellation of Rocko's Modern Life, which Hillenburg directed." (or whatever)
    • Done.
  • "Kenny and Catlett were the first cast members to receive award nominations for their voice-over performance." for their performance on SpongeBob, surely?
    • Done.
  • Interesting thought, but the addition of a non-free sample of SpongeBob's voice may be useful. I'm certainly left wondering what it sounds like!
    • I'll start looking for a good sample. Thanks :)
  • I don't really like the phrase "speaks the voice" or "performs the voice". "Voices" or "provides the voice of" are better
    • Fixed.
  • Be aware of MOS:LQ. See "Lawrence had "an interesting voice." Grillo" and "Squidward was "a very nasally, monotone kind of guy," said Bumpass."
    • Fixed.
  • "the characters of Patchy the Pirate, the president of the fictional SpongeBob SquarePants fan club, and his pet called Potty the Parrot debuted. The former is portrayed by Kenny, while series creator Hillenburg voiced the latter." Mention the fact Patchy is live action explicitly? Also, is the fan club fictional? Can kids not join it?
    • Is "...and his pet called Potty the Parrot debuted. The former is portrayed by Kenny in live-action, while series creator Hillenburg voiced the latter." better? And yes, that fan club exists only within the show's context.

Generally seems like a very strong article. Sources and pictures seem appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you very much! This is very helpful! :) Mediran (t • c) 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Wings of Destiny

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the Background section has had some additions, and a new section called Reception has been created. Any suggestions about how to improve this article, or what needs to be changed/cut would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Twyfan714 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is of so great standards that it can be a FA. However, before nominating, I would like to know any suggestions about it in this PR.

Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 05:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Aurobindo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because want to this article to FA suggestions in converting this to FA would be helpfull

Thanks, Shrikanthv (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spike Wilbury

edit
General
  • I noted that you have quite a few citations to autobiographical works and self-published works. Ensure only basic facts are cited there, and nothing controversial or requiring academic inquiry or confirmation. For these you need secondary sources.
  • Check wikilinks; key terms should be linked in the lead and then first mention in the body. For example, ICS. Also check for double-redirects; your first link to ICS goes to a page that redirects elsewhere.
Lead
  • "turned into a spiritual reformer" is an awkward phrase. Maybe "became a spiritual reformer" or "refocused on spiritual reform".
  • " writing articles against their rule" Clarify what is meant here. Opposing their rule? Critical of their rule?
  • "Sri Aurobindo evolved a new method of spiritual practice" Evolved is an awkward term. Invented? Developed?
  • "Aurobindo was the first Indian to create a major literary corpus in English." This strikes me as something that could be challenged, and it is sourced to something that looks like a college textbook. Do you have any other academic sources about this? Do you have any information on the strength and authority of that book?
Biography
  • The Early Life section seems lightly cited. Do the citations at the ends of the paragraphs support all the text? If you go to FAC, reviewers may request more citations.

Will return with more later. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, have started to work on that but Spike Wilbury , have little concern over claims such as below

" Although his family were Bengali, his father believed British culture to be superior to that of his countrymen. "

the actual book here and at page 6

I feel its a wrong claim , Their is another senior editor involved in current correction, so what would be the right thing to do ? (unless if have to go for edit wars ) Shrikanthv (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source given at the end of that paragraph is Heehs (2008), pp. 8-9. Do you understand how our citation system works in this case? Anyway, the source on p. 8 seems to support that claim. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WINC (AM)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was promoted to Good Article Status on April 10 and I am looking for a review of the article whole prior to taking the article to FAC. Advice is also welcome. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments

edit

General thoughts

This looks to be in good shape, and I found very few minor things to fix. I was unable to find an example of an FA article about a radio station, so I'm thinking that this one could be the model if eventually promoted. Making it comprehensive (no easy task) will be important.

Non-U.S. readers might be puzzled by things that are common knowledge to U.S. residents. Readers in India may not recognize the name Patsy Cline, and lots of readers will know nothing about CONELRAD or the FCC. You have already provided links, but I'm thinking that brief in-text explanations might be useful too, though it will mean finding tidy RS summaries that can be cited.

It would be interesting to know more about the size and nature of the original listening audience and also how those changed with time. These are probably related to other variables such as the number of competing stations in the region, the changing population size and demographics, the changes in ownership and affiliations, and the changes in programming. I imagine, for example, that listeners had opinions about the change from a music station to a talk station and that WINC reached a larger and possibly different audience by increasing its transmitter power and by adding a sister FM station. In addition, competitors using radio, TV, or Internet transmission may have siphoned off some of WINC's original audience.

I wonder if and how the politics of the station changed with time. The current station features a lot of what some observers might describe as right-wing propaganda ("The Right Side of the Radio Dial"). If so, was that always the case? It appears not, from what's already in the article, but it's not clear when or why the change came about. Maybe with the switch to talk radio? Maybe with one of the changes in ownership? Maybe with changes in the audience?

Is anything else known about the economics of the station? Has it always been profitable? How many people work at the station?

There's mention of advertising minutes in the article. Is there any way to say who the main advertisers were or how the kinds of ads might have changed over time?

Lead

  • I would add to the lead that this station is in the United States.
    •   Done - NH
  • I'd include brief mention of the "Programming" section, and I'd include mention of the switch from music to all-talk.
    •   Done: I included a sentence about the switch to talk and the station's format. - NH
  • I'm not sure how a contest could short out telephone circuits. Maybe "The resulting thousands of simultaneous phone calls to the station shut down the local telephone system." Or something like that.
    •   Note:: I think it was because it was a 1947 phone system, making it easier to short out. That is how it was discribed by the owner, Richard F. Lewis, Jr., in the article at the time. The mention of the system shorting out was just used in a DYK. - NH

Pre-broadcast

  • Say where WFVA was based, as you do with the other radio stations.
    •   Done - NH
  • "on the week of November 10, 1940" – "During" rather than "on".
    •   Done - NH
  • "At launch, the station broadcast at 250 watts day and night." – Would it be good someplace here to explain whether 250 watts is a little, average, or a lot? What was the range of the station?
    •   Note:: 250 watts is considered fairly low for an AM station. Unfortunately, I don't have any sources to back that statement up. The range was, probably, within the Winchester city limits. That is a guess, to be honest, as I don't have anything to back that up either. - NH
  • "The station was assigned the WINC call sign in early March 1941." – Might be good to say who assigns the call signs. I assume it's the FCC, but I don't know.
    •   Done: You are correct, it is the FCC which assigns call signs. I put "by the FCC" at the end of the sentence. - NH
  • "The station's first transmitter was a Western Electric type 310B." – This will mean nothing to most readers. I would link transmitter and also say something more about the Western Electric type 310B, if any RS can be found to explain it. Was it special in some way, better than other options?
    •   Done: I ditched this sentence. I included it as a neat piece of trivia, but you are right, it won't mean anything to most readers. - NH
  • "Lewis filed the initial application for a new station in Winchester, Virginia, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on the week of November 10, 1940." – What was the population of Winchester at that time?
    •   Done: Population added, sourced via the University of Virginia. - NH

Post World-War II

  • The request for more power (500 and 1,000 watts) seems related to range, audience size, and marketing, but the reason for the requested shift to 950 AM is completely unclear to me. What would be better about 950 AM?
    •   Note:: That's a very good question. Fact is, I don't know. I'm not sure if they were trying to go for a lower frequency which allows for greater coverage or if they wanted to later expand to higher wattage, maybe even try for clear channel status. I'm just not sure. The information I have doesn't give a reason, unfortunately. - NH
  • Did Virginia Hensley sing more than once on WINC? If so, did she become Patsy Cline while still singing on WINC? Did she get paid by The Melody Playboys despite her offer to work for free? What did she sing on that first occasion?
    •   Done: Unsure if she ever got paid, nothing I can find states one way or another, but she did continue to perform on WINC. Not sure what she sang either. - NH
  • "In 1959, WINC engineer Philip Whitney designed a CONELRAD alarm device for FM stations." – I think this is the first mention in the article of an FM station. Did WINC have an FM sister station in 1959? If so, when was it added?
    •   Done: Added a quick blurb about it, with source. - NH
  • " early nationwide warnings in the event of possible enemy attack during the Cold War" – Link Cold War.
    •   Done - NH
  • "Whitney is also credited with creating many of the remote control systems used by radio stations, including the microwave remote control system." – How do radio stations use remote control systems? What for? Are microwave transmissions from tower to tower the main or only use? I'd add a link to microwave transmission to help readers with at least part of this. Are the transmissions incoming only, or do they go both ways, to and from WINC?
    •   Note:: As I understand it, stations use remote control systems to control a transmitter that is miles away. Essentially so they won't have to have a big tower in their back yard. Today, this is done via Studio/transmitter link and Transmitter/studio link. I'm not sure if Whitney created these systems or not. I can't find anything online stating one way or another. - NH

The 1960s through the 1980s

  • I'd recommend shortening the section head to "1960s through 1980s".
    •   Done - NH
  • In the 1965 logo in this section, the FM station is listed as WRFL. In the "The 1990s to present" section, the sister FM station is named WINC-FM. Some possibility for confusion exists here; maybe the call sign was changed at some point? If so, when and why? WRFL is now based in Lexington, Kentucky. Did the station move, or is there some other explanation?
    •   Note:: WINC-FM switched it's call sign to WRFL in 1949. In June of 1979, that station became WQUS, before switching back to the WINC-FM call sign on January 1, 1981. - NH
  • "The station was the first in Winchester to announce the assassinations of John F. Kennedy in 1963 and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968." – I think this is the first mention in the article of other stations in Winchester. What are the other stations? What kinds of programming do they offer that differ from WINC? Maybe the answers to this belong mostly in the final section of the article. It would be interesting to know if Winchester has an NPR station, a classical music station, a country-and-western station, a jazz station, and so on.
    •   Note:: In 1963, Winchester had three stations. WHPL 610 (now WXVA), WINC and WINC-FM. A fourth, WHPL-FM 102.5 (now WUSQ-FM) hadn't launched yet. No formats were available in the sources I have. By 1968, WHPL-FM was on the air, bringing the number of stations in Winchester to four. No formats were listed then either. Today, we have a selection of stations from country, to CHR, to rock, to AC, to religious. WMRA, the NPR station in Harrisonburg, Virginia (about 90 miles to our south) has a translator in Winchester, but no real programming comes from Winchester. I do list all the area stations in the market template in the "External Links" section. - NH
Oh, I just missed that. I didn't look at any of the collapsed lists at the bottom for info, but there it is. I leave it to you to decide whether to add any of this to the main text or not. – FT
I fear that would start bringing the scope of the article away from WINC (AM) if I were to add any about other stations. With WINC-FM, since it is the sister station, a quick mention I believe is OK. But others, like stations owned by other companies, would get beyond the scope of the article.
There is a "Sister Station" section in the infobox and the market template, which allows the reader to flip to other articles. I believe this would be enough of a mention for connected (ie: sister stations) and unconnected stations to WINC. That's just my opinion, though. :) - NH

1988 "Lottery" lawsuit

  • "Thomson analogized it to a contestant on Let's Make a Deal." – "It" is ambiguous in this sentence. Maybe: "Thomson compared the contest to Let's Make a Deal, a television game show in which winning contestants could choose to keep a prize or trade it for a chance at a bigger prize." If you use my suggestion, you'll need to add an RS for the last part of the sentence.
    •   Done: I changed it up to read: "Thomson compared the contest to the game show Let's Make a Deal". - NH

The 1990s to present

  • This section head might be better as "1990s and after".
    •   Done - NH

Programming

  • Link IMG?
    •   Done: I used IMG College instead. IMG the company is the umbrella name for everything they do from Art and Commerce, to Consulting, to Events, to Fashion. IMG College is the broadcasting arm of the company. - NH
  • Does WINC cover any local sports such as high school football?
    •   Note:: Not anymore. They did several years back, but to what extent, I'm not sure. - NH

References

  • The formatting looks good to me except for a few newspaper article titles that should be converted to title case. An example is citation 66: "Judge says WINC Radio Contest is Legal" in which "Says" and "Is" would be correct (initial cap letters on major words). In this same way, citation 52 is correct, but citation 76 is not.
    •   Done: I did my best with these. The one that confused me, ref #48, gave me some issues. I corrected it as "Voice of Prophecy" to Go on NBC on June 3, but I'm not sure if that is right. The word "Go" has me confused. - NH

Images

  • I don't think you'll have trouble convincing everyone that one non-free image (the first logo) meets the WP:NFCC criteria, but it will be hard to convince everyone that you need four non-free images of logos. The last three seem mainly decorative to me, and I would try to replace them somehow. You could simply delete the 1941 logo since it creates a text sandwich with the infobox. You might consider using File:Patsy Cline II.jpg, File:HarveyPaul.jpg, or anything that seems to fit thematically.
    •   Done and   Note:: I removed the last two logos and kept the station's first, moving it down to the "World War II" section. Since it is the station's first logo, I'm hoping the historic value will be enough to keep it, but will cut it if necessary. I moved the picture of the station's studios down slightly. There is an old black and white photo of Patsy Cline in front of an old WINC microphone. The website is a fan page with alot of stories, old pictures and what not, says the information is copyright "EllisNassour", but I'm wondering if this person really owns the copyright to that photo. - NH
Yeah. People sometimes claim copyright even when they shouldn't. I've run into that with fan sites that sell old postcard images from before 1923. The Patsy Cline image is post-1923, so at this point there's not enough evidence to say one way or the other whether it's under copyright. Wikipedia can't use it without proof that it's in the public domain or otherwise licensed for copying, altering, and redistribution, essentially. Maybe WINC owns the original and could advise about its copyright status and/or license the image for use by Wikipedia. The official process is a bit tedious, so before pursuing this, you'll have to decide if the image is worth the trouble it might take to obtain it. – FT
I have a message into WP:IMAGEHELP to see if the above linked image might be allowed here on Wikipedia. I will let you know the outcome of that either here or on your talk. - NH
The image (both the one full image and the cropped one) come from an image that is copyright to "Frank Driggs Collection/Hulton Archive/Getty Images". So, we can't use it. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps and that you'll be able to improve this one to FA. Holler if anything here is unclear. Finetooth (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best with all of the suggestions. Some that I either haven't done, due to lack of information or whatever, I have marked with a   Note: mark. Others that I have finished, I have marked with a   Done mark, though some of those might have notes.
Please let me know if anything else needs cleaned up and I will work on those as quickly as I can. Thanks again for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast. I don't have any other ideas at the moment, but if something occurs to me, I will post another note here. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm excited about a project, I get to work. This one has me excited because it is just one of 2 GA radio stations in Virginia and will be the only FA station ever if promoted. Plus, it's the history of Virginia that gets me going too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamiltonstone comments

edit

I generally don't review these sorts of articles, so please disregard anything that seems inconsistent with, eg, wikiproject guidelines.

  • Linking "broadcasting" in the lead seems unnecessary
    •   Done - NH
  • The expression "news/talk/sports formatted" seems clunky and certainly not a prose style I'd expect at FA level. Also, each of those terms is linked, and I note the link for "news" is to "news only radio", yet this obviously isn't news only, because it is also doing talk and sports.
    •   Note:: This is the format given by Arbitron and the station. Some talk stations are just "Talk", some are "Talk/Sports" when they carry sports coverage, but ones that have their own news coverage, are "News/Talk/Sports". News radio, redirects to All-news radio, and doesn't always mean the station is all news, but that is carries news programming. - NH
  • While the lead refers to the current format of the station in this way, the body text actually does not define the station's format until the 1980s section. Why is that?
    •   Note:: The sources that I have available don't give a station's format (AM or FM) until the early 80s. From what I have heard, the station carried a Full Service/Variety format, but I don't have anything to back that up. - NH
  • The lead is too fragmentary / choppy to reach FA. Consecutive sentences are about unrelated content. While Patsy Cline is obviously a significant figure, in the lead it comes across as a piece of trivia / factoid that doesn't lead anywhere. Ditto the factoid about shorting out the phone system.
    •   Done: I expanded both the Patsy Cline and phone shorting blurbs. I have also expanded the CONELRAD blurb as well. - NH
  • The lead doesn't tell us whether it was or remained an AM band station.
    •   Done: I added "1400 AM" right after the initial call sign in the very first paragraph. - NH
  • "He did not foresee any changes to the stations" - repetition of word "station" in successive sentences sounds clunky.
    •   Done: I changed the first to sister stations (as it mentions WINC's sister stations), the second I switched to "company", and the third I left as is. - NH
  • "The sale closed in August 2007". What does this mean? Is this a technical term relating to how radio freuqencies are transacted? It was on offer but the sale closed without a buyer, or does the article mean the sale was successfully made for that sum?
    •   Done and   Note:: "Closed" is a real estate term, means the same thing here. The sale closed (money exchanged, signatures signed, etc.) in August of 2007. To make the term less confusing, I have linked the word "Closed" with Closing (real estate). - NH
  • The article begins by referring to Richard Field Lewis, Jr., and later has "Richard F. Lewis, Jr." at one point - it seems odd to have this relatively full version of his name in subsequent use. Why not just Lewis, or Richard Lewis? The article doesn't mention Lewis Senior at all.
    •   Note:: The first use of Lewis's name was the full "Richard Field Lewis, Jr.". To change things up, I used "Richard F. Lewis, Jr." and I used "Lewis" a couple times as well. I was trying to not use the same thing over. From everything I have found, Lewis, Sr. was never apart of the company. - NH
  • "the first to get through was from the telephone company informed Sheeler that his contest was jamming local phone lines" - missing word / syntax problem there somewhere.
    •   Done: I fixed that by switching it to "the first call" and breaking it into two sentences, it seemed to be a bit of a run-on. - NH
  • How could the phone company have been the first to get through? It seems impossible. After all, they would have had to react to the sudden influx of calls. Surely the first to get through would have been a random one of those first callers?
    •   Note:: The information I have is that the telephone company got through first. You may be right that a random person got through first, but the source I have says the opposite. :S - NH
  • Do we have an explanation available of the dismissal of the 1947 application for change in frequency and power?
  • "WINC joined the NBC Radio Network on November 1, 1951, after more than 10 years as an ABC affiliate.[23] WINC rejoined ABC Radio, carrying both networks' programming, on January 18, 1952,[45] but dropped NBC programming in 1953". This passage raises more questions than it answers. How can one be a member of two networks simultaneously? Why did it drop the NBC programming after such a short period? I realise the sources may not be clear, but it seems like a major event that demands some sort of explanation.
    •   Done and   Note:: NBC Red became NBC, NBC Blue became ABC. Confusing, I know. So I added some "previously called NBC (color)" in parentheses to clear things up. I also have the name switch of NBC Blue to ABC listed and sourced several paragraphs above. - NH
      • Not sure that this has helped - it doesn't seem to address the issues I raised.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Missed that part at the bottom. I honestly don't know why they switched from ABC to NBC and then back again. The information I have just mentions the switch. I do know the NBC Network went to WINC-FM. - NH
  • is it "a" CONELRAD device or "the" CONELRAD device - the lead implies that Whitney designed the concept and system, and there was only one such thing; the body text is more ambiguous, implying he may have designed one such alarm device, and there are others. Which is correct, and then copyedit the text to make it consistent and clear.
    •   Done: I fixed this when I fixed the CONELRAD reference in the lede. - NH
  • I thought Shenandoah was a place. How come there's a Shenandoah Apply Blossom Festival in this other town? And what on earth is a Queen of an Apple Blossom Festival?? And a Minister of the Crown has a particular meaning in Westminster system countries such as Australia and the UK. It obviously has some other meaning here, which is completely opaque to me.
    •   Note:: Shenandoah is town in Virginia, but it is named after the Shenandoah Valley. Since Winchester is named for Winchester, England, we take some of the terms from them. Each festival has a Queen, we do too. The Minister of the Crown is typically the father of the Queen. - NH
      • Thanks for the note, but it still needs fixing in the article. I'm sure a Virginian will understand this, but that leaves the rest of the English speaking world. And even the explanation you make here doesn't completely make sense to me. You say some of the terms from England, but I've never come across a festival queen, just a queen of the country :-) And no modern Minister of the Crown would be the queen's father. All in all, it remains bizarre. In any case, do you think it might be reaching a level of unencyclopedic detail for a radio station entry? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do have a point about how the mentions could be unencyclopedic. The reason I put them in the article was to explain why President Johnson was in town. I could change it to say "President Lyndon B. Johnson, visiting for the Apple Blossom Festival in 1964, was interviewed live on the station." Completely removing any mention of Queen, Minister of the Crown, or anything confusing. - NH
  • More generally, the whole first para of the 1960s to 80s section is a bit wierd. It is an assemblage of celebrity spots on the station. This section needs to be introduced with a more substantive para about the history of the station, rather than who happened to have sat in front of one of its mikes. It also refers to "The station was the first in Winchester to announce the assassinations..." My reaction to this was 'are you kidding? it's a town of 12 000 people. How could there possibly be any other stations?' The article has not mentioned any rivals, only that WINC was the town's first station.
    •   Note:: As I mentioned in the other PR above, in 1963, Winchester had three stations. WHPL 610 (now WXVA), WINC and WINC-FM. A fourth, WHPL-FM 102.5 (now WUSQ-FM) hadn't launched yet. By 1968, WHPL-FM was on the air, bringing the number of stations in Winchester to four. We are kinda of a centrally located town, so we got radio stations quicker than the towns around us (except for DC and Baltimore, of course). I didn't mention any rivals as I didn't want to move away from the scope of the article. There is a template box at the bottom with all the radio stations in the market. - NH
      • OK, well i still think there are things needing fixing here; the point about the rivals wasn't really my main issue. Actually, you've just identified a big gap in the article: no data about market share. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could move all celeb references to a sentence or paragraph of their own. I think it is worth mentioning that big name celebs and a sitting President were on the station's air. As for market share, are you meaning ratings? Because those will be tough to find. Arbitron, now owned by Nielsen, doesn't have back copies of seasonal ratings books. - NH
          • Well, if the para structure stays as-is, then give that first paragraph an introductory sentence. Like "In the 1960s, the station hosted interviews with several prominent figures". That said, I would also query the notability of a politician (other than the President) giving an interview at a radio station (what else are radio stations - at least news ones - there for?) I guess I may not be understanding the political culture. If a radio station only managed to interview one of its state's Senators / Congressmen in four years (as this implies), that suggests to me poor performance rather than the notability of the one interview it finally secured (and in several cases only because the person was around for some other unrelated reason). What am i missing here? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is very possible there were other politicians interviewed on WINC, I just have those. I cropped the mentions of Luci Baines Johnson, Harry F. Byrd, and Robert Byrd. I left Paul Harvey and President Johnson. Harvey being notable as he broadcast his "News and Comment" show to the entire nation from WINC. - NH
  • The article refers to "American Contemporary Network" (in quote marks). What is this, why is it in quote marks, and how can it be a "network" when that word is elsewhere used to refer to a group of related radio stations?
    •   Note:: The "American Contemporary Network" was one of four networks from ABC Radio back in the 80s. There isn't a page for it here on Wikipedia, so I used quotes. Mid-Atlantic Network, Inc. was WINC's previous owner, they were a radio network in the typical sense, just the name of the company. - NH
      • I think it is better without the quote marks. I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying about the use of "Network" - you refer to "one of four networks from ABC Radio" but then later contrast this with a different use of the term: "Mid-Atlantic Network, Inc. ... were a radio network in the typical sense, just the name of the company". For me this highlights the confusion a reader of the article will have. It somehow needs to be clearer that the ACN is not actually a network but a... I don't know, a syndicated schedule of programming, or whatever? hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        •   Done and   Note:: Sorry, that should have read "they weren't a radio network in the typical sense". That's what I get for typing too fast. I removed the quotes from "American Contemporary Network". - NH
  • "dropping the AP" why "the"?
    •   Note:: "The AP" comes from "The Associated Press", AP being the nickname. "The AP" is what they call themselves. - NH
      • If they call themselves "The AP", why is the phrase earlier in the paragraph "became an affiliate of AP Radio"?
        •   Done and   Note:: This is where they get confusing. They call themselves "The AP", but don't call their radio division "The AP Radio". You'd think they would choose one or another. I changed "The AP" to read "the Associated Press". - NH
  • "On May 17, 2007, Mid-Atlantic Network, Inc., announced it was selling WINC,..." whoa, what's with all the commas? Surely "On May 17, 2007, Mid-Atlantic Network Inc. announced it was selling WINC," is enough?!
    •   Done: Fixed. I suck at commas. :) I always overuse them, so forgive me on that one. :) - NH

Hope these comments help.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone:: I have done my best with all of the suggestions. Some that I either haven't done, due to lack of information or to answer any questions you had, I have marked with a   Note: mark. Others that I have finished, I have marked with a   Done mark, though some of those might have notes.
Please let me know if anything else needs cleaned up and I will work on those as quickly as I can. Thanks again for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't like the choppyness of the lead. I've made a bold attempt to improve it, and you can see what you think.
  • Like an earlier PR contributor, i think audience / market share information is important and probably needs to be hunted down for an article that is going to be comprehensive enough for FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead looks good to me. On the audience/market share, are you meaning ratings? - NH
      • Yes, although anything else on the listening audience for that matter would help. But I just can't imagine an article about a broadcaster making FA without the reader having any information about who actually listened / watched or how popular the station was / is. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, going back to the 40s, I don't think I will be able to find any ratings, cause I don't think the existed...yet. But I can give you how many "radio units" were available for a certain town or county. As you can see on this link, there was 2,968 radio units (or houses with radios) in 1942. Is this something you are looking for? Just to note, these were put out yearly. - NH
          • I can also give seasonal ratings from 1981 to about 2001. Beyond that, I can't do much as the information isn't available. How often should I put ratings information in or the "radio units" information? - NH
            • OK, I'd do a couple of things. In the 'pre-broadcast' section, I would work in a context sentence along the lines of 'In 1940, Winchester had a population of around X, and just under 3,000 radios were owned by households in the county [cite that 1940 magazine article]". Then, once you reach the period for which ratings first become available, I would add a sentence along the lines "In 1981, the first year for which ratings information is available, WINC had X percent of audience share in Winchester [or however it is expressed in the source]" then I would chose a couple of other points in time to quote audience share. These should be somehow linked to events in the station's history, or any notable shifts in the ratings. For example, You might note what its audience share was at the time it won that award for news spots (1988), when it underwent a significant format change (1992), and when all music was dropped and it became an AP affiliate (1996). I take it there are no ratings data for 2007 when the sale occurs? Why is that? Have agencies stopped gathering ratings data since 2001? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sure, that I can do, no problem. I won't be able to give the 1940 or 1941 "radio units" information, as the first year they came out was 1942, about 6 months after WINC went on the air. So not a big jump in time. The reason ratings aren't online or in book form after 2001 is a good question. R&R (magazine) previously had historic ratings on their website, but their owner, AC Nielsen, shut the site and magazine down in 2009. Unfortunately, you can't use the Internet Archive for that site. The other sites that are available for ratings don't store back editions of ratings books per Arbitron's rule that they don't. Typically, for historic ratings, you have to get them from the source (ie: Arbitron, now owned by AC Nielsen) and that costs a crapload of money. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find the 2007 ratings from a different source. I found the '42 "radio units" information, no problem. The '81 and '96 are also on there. The one I had a problem finding was the 1992 ratings. The site I use didn't have that ratings book. I checked the '91 and '93 books and Winchester wasn't listed, so that wouldn't have helped anyway. - NH

  • Hi Neutral, that looks pretty good, but the first time you use them, you need to give the reader some sense of what those rating numbers mean. Are they percentages of radio listeners? Or something else?hamiltonstone (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hamiltonstone::I looked for percentages, which would be ALOT easier to explain, but unfortunately I couldn't find them. I did, however, find a story about Nielsen buying Arbitron which explains TV and radio ratings. I linked the story as a reference with a quote (the explanation of ratings) beside each time I bring up the ratings in the article. This way, the reader is given an explanation as to what ratings are and the article doesn't veer off-topic. - NH

Mojo Hand comments

edit
  • For the lead, is "news/talk/sports" a defined radio format? If not, I think using slashes is too informal in the lead; perhaps you can use commas or explain the combination format.
    •   Done: I switched it from "news/talk/sports" to "news, talk, and sports". - NH
  • I think the first paragraph of the lead section should touch on the stations format(s) before the change in 1996 (though I wouldn't detail every change - just briefly mention the prior formatting).
  • The second paragraph of the lead feels a little scattered. It looks like the paragraph is a listing of milestones for the station, but there is nothing to tie them together. Perhaps we could start the paragraph with something like, "Several milestones have occurred during the station's more than seventy years of history."
    •   Done: Took the sentence you suggested and ran with it. - NH
  • The third paragraph of the section "Pre-broadcast and launch" seems disjointed - two sentences about the address and two sentences about population. I don't think it works as a cohesive paragraph.
    •   Done: I refined the population/radio stats part and moved it up slightly, merging the two sentences together. - NH
  • "Post World War II" section, last paragraph - I don't understand why the CONELRAD design is notable. Was it new or unique in some way? Whitney won an engineering award, so I assume it's notable, but I think we need to explain why.
    •   Note:: CONELRAD, which stood for Control of Electromagnetic Radiation, was the predecessor of today's Emergency Alert System and yesteryear's Emergency Broadcast System. "This is only a test....beeeep!" It was also the first of it's kind. There wasn't a system like it prior to 1951. The system, though, was only for warning of enemy attack during the Cold War. It became a dual-use system giving timely weather warnings (just like today) as well as the ever-ready warning to duck and cover. There was, prior to Whitney's invention, no way to relay those messages to radio stations. His alarm system made that possible. I worry, though, about going too in-depth about CONELRAD because it leaves the scope of the article. - NH
      • Agreed that you don't want to go into too much detail. Could you accurately say, "In 1959, WINC engineer Philip Whitney designed the first of it's kind CONELRAD alarm device..."? -MH
        • I can't because I don't know if there were alarm systems before and the source just says that he designed the alarm device. It doesn't say whether it was a first of it's kind. The part that mentions Whitney reads "The Conelrad alarm device for fm receivers was designed by Philip Whitney, WINC and WRFL (FM) Winchester, Va." Please note that WRFL is the previous callsign for sister station WINC-FM. - NH
  • The "Sale" section paragraph needs better flow - perhaps restructure into two paragraphs?
    •   Done: I broke the paragraph apart into two, smaller paragraphs. I also tweaked some of the sentences and moved a couple around. - NH
      • It's better, though I think you need one more sentence to end the section. Perhaps you can comment that programming has stayed the same (I think it has?) or that ratings have gone up (or down) since the sale. It just feels like it needs a clincher. - MH
        •   Done: I added a ratings and format "clincher", as you put it, at the end of the sale section. I sourced it with current ratings and the Arbitron format link. - NH

I also made a couple of small edits myself. Overall, it's a well researched and comprehensive article, with very strong referencing. It's an excellent addition to the encyclopedia, and I hope my comments are helpful. Cheers.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojo Hand:: I have done my best with all of the suggestions. I made a note on one, the CONELRAD one, which I marked with a   Note: mark. The rest I have finished and marked with a   Done mark, though some of those might have notes.
Please let me know if anything else needs cleaned up and I will work on those as quickly as I can. Thanks again for your help. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments above, but I really like the changes you made.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mojo Hand:: The CONELRAD one I have a problem with, sourcing mostly. The other I fixed with no problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Good job!--Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and thank you! I greatly appreciate your suggestions and help on this article and with this PR. Again, thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments

edit

The article has improved since my last look. I have just a few more quibbles:

  • Too many adjectives modifying "station" in the first sentence. Dropping "formatted" would help, and I don't think you need it.
    •   Done: I split this into two sentences, moving the format bit down into the second sentence. - NH
  • Further down in the lead, how about deleting "news/talk/sports" and just saying, "The station's format..."? You've already given us the format details in the first sentence.
    •   Done: I put "The station's current format..." so the reader knows which one I am talking about. - NH
  • The name "Mid-Atlantic Network, Inc." appears several times in the article. You could safely drop the "Inc." on all but the first use.
    •   Done - NH
  • Maybe I missed the explanation, but does a rating of 16.3 mean that 16.3 percent of the possible Winchester audience was listening to WINC-AM. If not, what does the rating number mean? Finetooth (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Note:: In the reference beside each mention of ratings, is news story which includes a quote (within the reference): "Ratings - Nielsen's in TV and Arbitron's in radio - help determine how much advertisers are charged to run commercials during TV programs and radio listening hours. The higher the rating, the more people there are watching and listening. That translates into a higher price for a commercial spot." I wasn't sure how to include that without veering off-topic. - NH
For important things that won't fit neatly into the main text, a "Notes" section can be useful. See Nimrod Expedition, for example. If you like the Notes system there, you can imitate it by looking at how the templates work and doing likewise via cut-and-paste and a bit of fooling around. I think that system would work well in this article; it would give you a good place to put the ratings explanation and maybe some other stuff you feel is interesting, possibly useful, but off-topic. Finetooth (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: There are "Notes" systems other than this one; you might find one you like better. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Finetooth: I made the EFN one work and added it to the first mention of ratings. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I see this morning, when I am not so exhausted from the day's travail, that you went through this explanation once before with Hamiltonstone. I missed seeing that last night, hence the redundant question. To answer an earlier question you put to me, I think the article might now be ready for a run at FA. Don't know how the other reviewers might feel. Finetooth (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, all I need is Hamiltonstone's sign off and we are good to go. I greatly appreciate your suggestions and help on this article and with this PR. Thanks! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Morgan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback on improving it to meet WP:GA?.

Thanks, Hmlarson (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big the Cat

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A logical next step for my second-favorite purple cat from Sonic, as I'm considering taking Sonic characters to WP:FTC and that will require a few FAs. As of yesterday, Big seems to have found something green, if not his frog. I think he should get a gold star for his valiant efforts, so I've taken him here first. Of particular concern is the use of the second-tier gaming site Cheat Code Central as a source; it's an opinion piece by a decently established editor on the site, but I'd still like weighings-in on whether it seems reliable enough in context. I'd also particularly like input on whether some additional non-free image would be ideal, as this was suggested during GAN, and on the article's wording. As always, though, all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spike Wilbury

edit
General
  • I'm not concerned about the use of Cheat Code Central, personally (although that doesn't preclude someone calling it into question at FAC). It is an opinion peace, but you're using just to express the author's opinions. Looking at the site, they seem to have an editorial process in place which usually means fact-checking as well. It would help if you could produce any known reliable sources (like gaming sites or magazines) that refer to CCC as reliable or authoritative.
  • Check refs for dead links and put correct archive URLs in the citations using the archiveurl and archivedate parameters.
Lead
  • "and has made playable and non-playable appearances in other games" This doesn't fit well with the structure of the rest of the sentence; maybe it can be made into its own sentence? Also, do you mean other Sonic games only, or other games in general?
  • Is the character being derided by the fanbase sourced? I can only find that statement in "Big's reception by critics and fans alike has been strongly negative", which is sourced to an article that's a dead link for me. Making a sweeping statement about fanbase reaction will require more (and better) sourcing.
  • "His poor reception and apparent uselessness caused Sonic Team to remove him from any future games in 2012" This seems awkwardly written to me. How about: "Due to his poor reception and apparent uselessness, Sonic Team stopped including him in games in 2012"
Conception and creation
  • "Rumors persist that Big was created to capitalize on the Dreamcast's fishing peripheral" Careful with phrases like this that suggest currency. The source dates to 2011; do the rumors persist even today? How does the source discuss it, and how did the author know the rumors were "persisting"? Did Iizuka state as much in the interview? Do you read German fluently? If not, how did you translate the article? Google Translate is not very good at getting a properly nuanced translation for more than very basic facts.

Need to take a break because my internet service is dodgy at the moment, but will be back with more. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
  • I'm concerned with the use of the Blistering Thumbs site as a source. Looking at the archive, there is not really any indication of any fact-checking or editorial process on the site, or any indication of how "Richard Coombs" is notable and why we should take his opinion seriously. As you saw, the site was taken town and folded into That Guy with the Glasses earlier this year. This is a critical problem because you have several citations to the Coombs article. As with the use of CCC, these will probably be challenged at FAC and you will need to produce reliable sources naming BT and CCC good sources of criticism.
  • ...Fuck. Fuck. You're right. I could've sworn it was a known reliable source here, although looking back, it may have just been that I hit "preview", saw that it was bluelinked in the citation, and figured that was good enough. I may keep it for the time being at a few other Sonic character articles as some extra weight so they don't get AfD'd, but I've removed all references to it here. Tezero (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you're spot-on; they totally will, and it's better to replace it as necessary now, when I have time and am not risking the deadly Oppose vote for poor sourcing. I just wish I could find another source that summarized how Big's thought of overall. It's frustrating; I know I've seen some from definitively reliable publications, but they're not turning up now. Tezero (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Nothing should be in the infobox that's not also written about and sourced in the article text. For example, the "voiced by" fields. You should write about those people in the appropriate headings and make sure to include sources. Those can be primary sources (like credits, instruction booklets, etc.)
Appearances
  • Seems generally well-written and complete; I didn't notice anything I would change in the writing. You did ask about non-free images, and I actually find it curious that you decided to include an image that doesn't actually depict Big. Rather than adding another image, I would considering replacing the current one with one that depicts Big in the midst of some key game-play.
Reception and impact
  • Looks well-written, and it seems that you gathered as many sources as are likely to be available.

I think that's it. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Greeley

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need the review to improve my proficiency in creating articles.

Thanks, Cathlec (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scotopic sensitivity syndrome

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because scotopic sensitivity is a controversial topic, and recent edits have promoted the "pro" argument. The article needs balance, and would benefit from a review by someone with unbiased knowledge in reading disorders.

Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Lecouvreur

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have added some sections and edited information on this article, and would like to invite anyone who is familiar with Mademoiselle Lecouvreur to collaborate or make suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, CataVillamarin111 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

edit

LEAD: I think this is a great summary, and introduced me to her in a nice, general way. You have a little type -- I think you mean "scholars have." I really like that you've talked about her whole life here, not just her acting career. That really helps to paint a fuller picture of her personal history. When you say "her story," do you mean her life story?

STRUCTURE: I think you have a great structure. I like that you took the time to talk about her legacy. I might suggest renaming Early Years to "History" and then having subheaders like Early Years, Later Years, etc (or whatever is appropriate). That may help the reader follow along a bit better.

INTERNAL LINKS: You did a great job linking to other Wiki articles throughout the text, when applicable/appropriate. I couldn't think of any See Also pages to add, so for now I think you're probably fine without a See Also section.

EXTERNAL LINKS: Likewise, I drew a blank for any External Links I would have liked to have. Unless you come across something directly relevant, you're probably ok not to have this section either. The article is not lacking, for not having one.

IMAGES: These are wonderful! There are some beautiful images you were able to use. Great job.

HISTORY/HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I love the information about her early years! Here are a few questions I had when reading: At what age did she move to Paris with her family? I was a little unclear on the second theater troupe in the sentence beginning "Young Adrienne found" ...what troupe are you referring to? I'd also love to know how old she was when she played the role of Pauline -- you may want to make it more clear that this is her stage debut, yes? Finally, I would want to make it clear that Philippe Le Roy is Elisabeth's father, not Adrienne's. The information is all here, just little clarity things! Really great job.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF INFO: I really love the Acting Style section. I think it's wonderful to have this whole section devoted to something she was known for. I also like the Legacy section quite a bit, because it rounds out the article. I would love to see a section devoted exclusively to the talk of her mysterious death, since it seems to be a huge part of her history, and it's something you mention in the lead section.

ACCURACY OF INFO/CITATIONS: You have a number of wonderful citations! I can't wait to see what you add with that new book you just got. I'm really impressed by how thorough these citations are; great job.

CLARITY OF INFO: In the lead, I would change the first sentence to read "considered by many critics" or something that's more neutral/less general. My only other thought would be starting the first sentence in Early Years with "Adrienne Lecouvreur was born Adrienne Couvreur on..." In general, I think you refer to an individual by their last name for the duration of an article, after having mentioned their first name in the lead. So you'd just write Lecouvreur was... for the rest of it. (But you may want to double-check me on that!)

OTHER: Love it! I can't wait to see what else you come up with. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Kfurano1129

A great start on this article so far, Catalina! Here is my peer review for our class assignment; hope it is helpful!

  • Structure, format and appearance
    • Lead section - this article's lead section provides an excellent overview of the subject, without going into excessive detail and while keeping the majority of content within the body of the article. The lead section also uses in-text links very well. My only suggestion here would be to clean up the sentence structure a bit; I think the information could be expressed in a more succinct and clear manner.
    • Body - the article contains a logical series of section that help organize the context of the article. I have not seen your writing plan, but I think the article might be improved the addition of sections dedicated to her career in at its peak; on the circumstances surrounding her death; and on her personal life (since you mentioned both in the lead section). Of course, this is all dependent on your access to research material on these topics.
    • In-text links and "See Also" section - this article makes excellent use of relevant in-text links throughout, helping increase the a user's understanding of the article. I would suggest the addition of a "See Also" section to strengthen the article, linking to relevant Wikipedia articles not currently covered by the in-text links.
    • External links section - this article currently lacks an "External Links" section, which would strengthen the overall comprehensiveness of the article's contents.
    • Images - the article contains three relevant images of Mlle. Lecouvreur that all adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. My only suggestion would be to revisit the caption on the third image; it is a little unclear.
  • Content and sources
    • Information - this article's content provides a strong overview of the topic, providing both historical context and a largely complete overview of Mlle. Lecouvreur's life. My only suggestions to expand the article's content can be found in the "Body" section above (again, should relevant research be available). The article is also well-sourced and cited, containing references to strong secondary and tertiary sources, including scholarly journals. As with the lead section, I think the language could be a little more succinct throughout.
    • Sources - I would suggest taking another look at the Wikipedia reference standards handout; the citations could be cleaned up a bit. As per Tim riley and Ssilver's comments to me last semester, it seems to be Wiki best practice to separate journal and news sources into the "References" section that will then refer, when necessary to a "Sources" section that lists all book sources. Also, there are several sources you have listed twice, rather than having separate citations refer to the same reference/source. I'd be happy to show you how to fix this!

Keep up the great work! Kfurano1129 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Communications Group

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to reach out for additional sources to more strongly verify the information I've added to the article, and to seek out additional facts about Theatre Communications Group that can be verified by reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Since TCG is an existing organization, I've had to rely on many periodical sources, and I hope to increase the reliability of this article with the addition of more scholarly sources with the help of the peer review process.

Since this article is the subject of an assignment for a graduate course, I would also welcome suggestions about the readability and structure of the article thus far. Thanks for your help! Kfurano1129 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kfurano1129 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

edit

LEAD: This is a really thorough description; great job! I would maybe consider combining the first and second paragraphs for flow; or, you could put all of the publication info together (ie TheatreFacts and the American Theatre magazine, etc). That would help the flow, for me!

STRUCTURE: I really like the way you've divided the article up, particularly the subheadings within the membership section. Perhaps you could use subheadings within the Services and Events section as well? (i.e. Grantmaking activities; networking; publications). Otherwise, your structure is very logical and organized, which certainly makes for easy reading.

INTERNAL LINKS: When applicable, there are internal links to other Wiki pages. This topic as a whole does not lend itself to numerous internal links, but these are thorough for what's appropriate. ARTSEARCH in the lead section is a dead link. I like that you've included the list of TCG member theatres in the See Also section. (Would it be appropriate to link this in the text as well? I was hoping for a list when reading the Membership section. Again, not sure what Wiki-land dictates.)

EXTERNAL LINKS: This a great section; I've never really seen an External Links section with such pertinent info! Good job! I think this is great.

IMAGES: Good use of the logo and the Goodman as a founding theatre. I wonder if you could perhaps include a cover of American Theatre.

HISTORY/HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: This is well-developed! I would perhaps add some information regarding location, if that's pertinent? Not sure where their offices are. Did its founding members all hail from one region? That would be fun to know.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF INFO: Overall, I think this is coming along very nicely! It was an easy but informative read, and I definitely benefitted from reading about TCG. You answered any and all questions I had while reading, and I didn't spot any glaring holes, in terms of comprehensiveness.

ACCURACY OF INFO/CITATIONS: From what I know about TCG, your information is accurate. I'm definitely impressed by your citation efforts! Everything looks incredibly well-referenced.

CLARITY OF INFO: My only concern would be the inconsistent use of TCG versus Theater Communications Group. You use both interchangeably, which doesn't bother me, but I'm not sure if one is preferred over the other in Wiki-land?

OTHER: Love it! Great job; can't wait to see what else you come up with this semester. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

George Robey

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

The English music hall comedian George Robey was perhaps best known for his "Prime Minister of Mirth" character and his humour which mixed everyday situations and observations with comic absurdity. Robey's naturally big, black eyebrows, together with his use of clown-like make-up, wooden cane, black robes and small, bowler hat, formed the appearance of the Prime Minister of Mirth which he used to entertain audiences on both the national and international stage. He was envied by his colleagues for his ability to ad-lib and was adored by his country for his tireless fundraising which earned good causes in excess of £2 million during both world wars. For this, he was made a CBE and was later knighted shortly before his death in 1954. He was, according to his biographer Peter Cotes, "the finest entertainer of the English music hall tradition".

Together with the FA promotions of Dan Leno, Marie Lloyd and Little Tich, it would only seem right that I now bring the fourth biggest name in English music hall (IMO) to the FAC stage. The article has already benefitted from a thorough copyedit from Ssilvers and a mini review by SchroCat. At 83,000 bytes, I am keen not to extend the article any further and I would be most grateful if reviewers could keep that in mind when asking for elaboration on some of the information. I also welcome ideas on how to reduce, without it effecting the article in terms of quality. I would be most interested to see what others think and I would be happy to receive any comments and/or criticisms from any willing reviewers. Thanks, Cassiantotalk 15:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Cassianto. Another question for reviewers is whether anyone has any ideas for images that could be used in the lower third of the article (of course it is harder to find free images published after 1923). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ss. I think I have exhausted every possible avenue with having images in the lower half of the article, but have so far hit a huge copyright wall with every turn. If anyone does have any ideas for a way to get around this, then I would very much welcome them. I believe that the same copyright concerns would exist with sound files, but I would happily be proved wrong. Cassiantotalk 04:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

Tons more to follow, but two preliminary thoughts before I get stuck in properly:

  • It would help the flow of your prose if you deleted "Robey" wherever it would be adequate to say "he", "him" or "his". For example: "In the early months of 1919, Robey completed a book of memoirs, My Rest Cure, which was published later that year. During the run of Joy Bells Robey was awarded the Legion of Honour for raising £14,000 for the French Red Cross. Robey declined a knighthood that same year because, according to Cotes, he was worried that the noble title would distance him from his working-class audiences, and instead he received the CBE from George V at Buckingham Palace. On the morning of the penultimate Joy Bells performance, Robey was invited to Stoll's London office where he was offered a role in a new revue at the Alhambra Theatre. On the journey, Robey met the theatre impresario Sir Alfred Butt, who agreed to pay the comedian £100 more, but out of loyalty to Stoll, he declined the offer and resumed his £600 a week contract at the Alhambra. On 28 July 1919, Robey took part in his second Royal Command Performance, at the London Coliseum. He and Loraine sang "If You Were the Only Girl (In the World)"." I reckon you should lose the second, third, fifth and sixth Robeys there. And so on.
    • I have blitzed the surname where I think it needs blitzing. I have an annoying tendency to do this. Please let me know if I have missed any. Cassiantotalk 18:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know any editor who doesn't fall into this trap. I do it all the time. It's just easier to spot when someone else does it. I'll keep my eye open for it when doing my close reading tomorrow or Tues. Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mondo ladro" – would you mind if I, whose favourite opera is Falstaff (not a word to Ssilvers) redrew this sentence and even expanded it a bit? Falstaff has been chucked in the Thames just before this, and his gloomy mutterings about the wicked world were utterly up Robey's street.

That's all for now. More later. I'm really looking forward to a close reading of this one. Tim riley (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here

  • Lead
    • Leaving till last, more meo.
  • Early life
    • "he later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge" – I don't think this quite squares with your footnote, which says only that he played along with people's mistaken belief that he was at Cambridge.
  • London debut
    • "Where Did You Get That Hat" – I think this should have a question mark at the end of the title. (I googled it and the first hit is someone called Stanley Holloway singing it.) You say "by J C Heffron", but I think that though he performed the song and made it a hit, it was written and composed by someone else. The British Library thinks it was by one James Rolmaz: see here; Wikipedia thinks it was by Joseph J. Sullivan (vaudeville). Heaven knows what the facts are, but either way it doesn't appear to have been Heffron's work. I think it might be prudent just to call it "the popular new comic song" or some such.
    • "Robey negotiated with his co-star to sing one of the comic songs " – two points here: first, as Robey was merely the stooge, is it accurate to describe him as a co-star? And secondly, the wording makes it ambiguous about which of them was to sing it.
    • "where, according to Cotes" – this is the first mention of Cotes in the text, so I think we need something on the lines of "according to his biographer Peter Cotes..."
  • Music hall characterisations
    • "centred around" – some people (probably the same people who faint at the sight of a split infinitive) insist that "centred around" is a logical impossibility, and that the phrase must be "centred on". Best to indulge them, for a quiet life.
    • "Robey dressed in a top hat, frock coat and malacca cane" – one would have be very thin indeed to dress in a malacca cane
    • "The new garb set him apart" – this is the second "garb" in three paras. Once is all right, but it's not a word to scatter about, I feel. Perhaps "outfit" or similar this time?
    • "several, well-established" – I'm no expert on punctuation, but I don't think you want the comma here
  • Success in pantomime and the provinces
    • "image: Robey's make-up design" – this is a key image for the article, and I suggest you ask the image boffins to improve the contrast, which is pretty murky at the moment, not to mention the words dimly showing through from the other side of the page from which it was scanned. I've never approached them myself, but Crisco and Loeba have been hugely helpful to me in this regard, and you might like to consult one of them.
      • I may be able to do something, but I need some resolution to work with. Any higher resolution than 250px? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alas, no. It's a clipping at 100% size by the look of it, from a newspaper. All things considered it's surprisingly good. If it's too low res to be improved, so be it, and thank you, Crisco, for looking in so quickly. Tim riley (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Crisco has very kindly had a go at improving them for me, but there has been little improvement. I will keep with the current one for the time being until that rare old beast – a beautifully photographed image which is desired AND PD comes along. Cassiantotalk 06:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "St Clement Danes church in the Strand" – probably best to add "London"
    • Geography: Circus Road is really in St John's Wood rather than Swiss Cottage; on the other hand 83 Finchley Road is bang in the middle of Swiss Cottage, not Camden Town as your link has it.
    • "at, amongst others, the Oxford Music Hall" – I always prefer "among" to "amongst", "amid" to "amidst" and "while" to "whilst"– shorter and less archaic
    • "for a fee of £120 per week" – "per" is fine with "annum", "cent" or other Latin word, but with the plain English "week" I'd go for "for a fee of £120 a week"
    • "only agreed on this" – I might rejig this as "agreed this only"
    • "Many's the squeeze she's had of my blue bag on washing day" – I bet you don't know what a blue bag was! They were still around when I was a little lad, and "can I have a squeeze of your blue bag?" was a catch-phrase of some comedian or other (clearly a Robey fan, I now realise).
  • Sporting interests
    • "Marylebone Cricket Club and remained an active player for them for many years" – this looks wrong to me: members of the MCC are the old buffers in the egg-and-tomato ties, whereas the players were the England cricket team. But I may be mistaken and I leave it to Sarastro or Brian B to comment authoritatively.
      • I'm ashamed to say that I know very little of cricket or the clubs who play it. Sarastro, I believe, will be along shortly. Have yet to ping Brian, but I will do shortly. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Members of the MCC were entitled to play for the club whenever they wanted; the MCC played many low-level games against local teams, as well as top-level matches where they were effectively the England team. So there's no problem here. Maybe say that he played in minor games to avoid any confusion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have added the minor matches into this. Cheers. Cassiantotalk 06:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • However, this page is from an ultra-reliable cricket site. It gives some of his games for the MCC, but it contradicts the article somewhat. We say that he was introduced to cricket in 1903, but CrickerArchive has him playing in 1895, with his own team, no less. So his interest must pre-date 1903 to some extent. (I realise this is a very, very minor point in the context of Robey's career, but the cricket pedant in me felt the need to point it out!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have a battle of the sources here. Cotes, as far as I can see, makes no mention of the 1890s being the decade in which Robey played cricket. I will check Wilson and report back, but if nothing, then I'm happy to use the source you provided above. Cassiantotalk 06:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "complimentary of" – about?
    • "right-handed bowler" – I don't think our cricket experts will like that phrase much ("right-arm" bowler is usual) but as it's in a quotation it will have to stand
      • Apologies in advance. I have amended the ref to show the culprit. Cassiantotalk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that big a problem actually. It's a bit archaic, but there was nothing wrong with "right-hand" or "left-hand" bowler (e.g. "slow left-hand"), in the same way that we now say "right-hand bat".
    • "The match raised significant proceeds" – what did they signify? You mean substantial or considerable, I think.
  • Oswald Stoll
    • "to which his biographer Peter Cotes attributes" – too late to give Cotes his job description here, particularly if, as suggested, you give it in the London debut section earlier.
    • The chronology has gone off the rails in the first para. In 1912 George V was king (not prince). His father, Edward VII died in 1910. When the latter pops up later in the para it is rather confusing. I think you need to recast this para so that the private show for King Edward comes before the Command Performance for King George.
    • "Lord Lonsdale and Carlton House Terrace" – well, I'm blest! I worked in that very building (13–16 Carlton House Terrace) in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s. If I'd known Robey had performed there I might have enlivened some of the duller meetings with the odd burst of one of his songs.
    • "organizing performances" – but you use "–ising" endings elsewhere in the text
    • "Robey was fond of the Merchant Navy" – to the pure all things are pure, but I can't help seeing a Hello Sailor joke in that phrasing. Perhaps "Robey was a strong supporter of..."?
  • Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here

More soon. I'm enjoying this every bit as much as I expected. Absorbing stuff, and highly enjoyable. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful thus far, thanks Tim! Cassiantotalk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Round two, to the end of Shakespearian roles

That's all for now, except to report a vague feeling that from the text as it stands a reader new to the subject might not quite get the distinction between music hall and variety. (Indeed, I'm not quite certain I know it myself.) Pray ponder. Having carped at you for line after line, let me say what a treat I'm having reviewing this! A delight. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Can you give a sense of Robey's variety career? Was it all provincial tours? How much time did he spend doing variety shows, or can you give some other description of his variety career, and how it was different from his (earlier?) music hall career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will have to have a more thorough look at this. Not all of his variety shows were limited to the provinces, he appeared in London and internationally with them as well. They differed from his MH routines inasmuch that they relied on some sort of organisation and scripting, where as his MH were frequently impromptu and their sketches or monologues were often picked at the last minute. Cassiantotalk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last lot from Tim
  • Radio and television debut
    • "over his fifty-year membership" – of Middlesex or Surrey, and was he really a member at age 16 (if my arithmetic is correct)?
      • This is what Wilson says. "In another talk he congenially discoursed on cricket, told about the players he had met in his youth when he regularly visited the Oval, and of the famous characters he knew at Lord's during his fifty years' membership." (Wilson, p. 159)
        • Fair enough, I think. From the quote it's clear he was a member at Lords – of the Middlesex County club, presumably. The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), also based at Lord's, was the elite and exclusive mafia that ran cricket in those days, but he wouldn't have got a sniff of membership of the MCC as a teenager. You might ask one of our two cricket sages to run an eye over this, as I don't really know what I'm talking about. Tim riley (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe Sarastro is popping along in the next few days.
            • That sounds wrong. Unless his dad was a member of the MCC, he would not have got in that quickly as there is/was an infamous waiting list for membership, and it was very, very exclusive. Especially in that period. It is ambiguous about which club he is talking: the Oval was less exclusive (and incidentally, the Oval and Lord's "crowd" hated each other with a passion) so maybe he was a member there. But it sounds like an exaggeration. Fifty-year association would be more plausible. (And I'm not sure whether Middlesex had any members as such, or if it was just the MCC at Lord's. It's not really important for the article, but I could probably check easily enough if it matters.) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • It now appears that Cotes also acknowledges Robey's membership of the MCC (he was elected in 1905 apparently). Cardus gives an anecdote and remembers Robey on the field at Lord's in 1921. Cotes quotes: "His strongest tie with cricket was his membership of the MCC; elected in 1905, he remained a member to the end of his life." Cassiantotalk 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sydney Morning Herald – you have misquoted the paper, which doesn't mention "fun". It's not a very illuminating quote in any case, it seems to me.
    • "with his divorce from Ethel finalised" – fifteen years after he walked out on her. Do we know why it took so long to complete the divorce?
      • He never spoke of the reasons as to why he split from Ethel, nor why he omitted to get a divorce. Blanche was even kept in the dark about it. Sure, Cotes offers his conspiracies, but none are tangible enough to include in my opinion. Divorce, I believe, was a sin back then and it was better to be Mrs George Robey than Mrs Nobody I suppose. Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Critic Harold Conway" – another missing "the"
  • Legacy
    • "of the Sir Henry Irving statue" – there are more than one, but this assuredly refers to the one outside the National Portrait Gallery. Worth mentioning, if so?
    • A passing observation: Gielgud was a huge fan of Robey: "who paused as he surveyed the audience and had them roaring with laughter before he uttered a word". JG drew on Robey's technique when confronted with a tricky comic role in André Obey's play Noah.
  • Lead

That's all I have to offer. This is a fine article, and how nice to read a biography of a music hall star who had a long and, it seems, generally happy life! – Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly enjoyed that review Tim, thank you very much! Cassiantotalk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

I went over chunk of this when it was still being written, but much has changed since then. I've made a few minor tweaks here and there (where it's easier to do, rather than say): feel free to revert or tweak any of them (apart from the change from an errant US spelling that had wondered in).

Early life

  • "His father Charles Wade[6] was a civil engineer who spent much of his career on tramline design and construction": Commas seem to be in the spotlight elsewhere at the moment, but I think Charles's name could be dropped into a sub clause by the judicious placement of two of the little beggars here. (I wait with baited breath for TR to tell me it's unnecessary...)
    • Adopted unless I hear different. Cassiantotalk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bloody hell! The bogeyman looking in here. Yes, commas are wanted, unless he had two or more fathers. More realistically, if we were talking of siblings, you'd write "his sister Susan" if he had several sisters and "his sister, Susan," if she was the only one. The difference between a describing ("non-restrictive") clause and a defining ("restrictive") one. But as the bogeyman needs to eat someone, who is it who has baited rather than bated breath? Oh, all right, I'm sorry! Tim riley (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Ma Robey (I see you've followed the comma-name-comma pattern on the third family member, Uncle George)
  • "the family moved back to London near the border between Camberwell and Peckham": slightly pedantic, but I'm not sure Camberwell and Peckham were actually part of London at the time... It may be best leaving as is, but someone may pick up on it at some point
    • How about deleting London and leaving "border between Camberwell and Peckham"? Strictly speaking, Cotes doesn't say London, only Camberwell and Peckham? Cassiantotalk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd leave in London, or "the London area", as all your readers will understand the general location without clicking away from the article. Unless it is jarring, I'd stick with just London. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "part of their ordinary daily lives": I'd be tempted to leave out "ordinary": some may have had quite extra-ordinary lives, and "part of their daily lives" seems to cover the point well enough.
  • "He later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge,[9][n 3]" Is there more to follow here, or should the comma be a full stop?

London debut

  • "returned to South London": I'm always getting the capitalisation mixed up with this, but is it "South London", or "south London"?

Done down to the end of London debut: more to follow in this fascinating and excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Success in pantomime and the provinces

  • "his position at the top of every theatrical bill": what, every bill? Even the ones he wasn't in? I'm being slightly facetious, but do you see wheat I mean?
  • "However, Robey disputed": the "however" will be a red flag to some at FLC, especially at the beginning of the sentence.

Sporting interests

  • The para beginning "By 1903" confuses me slightly. We start with Vigoro/cricket then into Millwall, then into the MCC and cricket. Perhaps starting with Millwall, then into Vigoro, moving into cricket and the MCC?

Stoll

Done to the end of Stoll: sorry it's a bit piecemeal, but a stack of new cases in over the last day or so has squashed my free time somewhat. More to come asap. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch for you: sorry about the delay in getting back to this, an outbreak of rather depressing silliness delayed me somewhat. Anyhow, on with the show...

Lovely, thanks. Not a problem at all. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage breakdown and foreign tours

  • "In early 1929, Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces. He then started another series of English variety dates." These two short sentences could move together quite happily (and lose the "then…then" repetition. Perhaps "In early 1929 Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces, after which he started another series of English variety dates."?

Second World War

  • "he appeared in various types of shows": should that be "various types of show" (singular)?
  • "He was unspecific in his choice of venues": I'm not sure "specific" is the right word, but my brain isn't working well enough to think of a substitute.
  • It's a bit thin around the late 1940s: is there a similar gap in the source material over these dates?
Unfortunately, both sources are scarce on information from 1947 (ish) to the early 50s. This, I'm sad to say, is a ramification of that. Cassiantotalk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in health

  • "Poplar in east London" Poor east London: only granted lower case status when South London gets all la-di-da with its capitalisation!
  • "he starred as Clown in a short pantomime": is Clown the character's name? Fine if it is, but the definite article needed if only a descriptor

Legacy

  • "charming, gracious [and] one of the few really great ones of [the music hall era]."[198] Perhaps a slight tweak to shorten the quote and remove the second set of brackets: "charming, gracious [and] one of the few really great ones" of the music hall era.[198] Your call either way.

FNs

  • You may want to check the formatting here and there, as some of the italicisation has gone a little awry: compare 150 and 152 157 and 159, for example.

Very minor quibbles in all, and feel free to adopt or ignore at your discretion! An excellent article and I await its appearance at FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Sorry for the delay, this week was slightly more chaotic than I expected.

No problem at all, thanks for popping by! Cassiantotalk 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "and musical theatre actor": Far from a major issue, but I wonder if "an actor in musical theatre" may be less abrupt?
  • "he made his debut on the London stage when he was 21 at the Royal Aquarium, where he was the on-stage assistant to an established comedian": Again, not major, but would "he made his debut on the London stage, aged 21, at the Royal Aquarium as the on-stage assistant to an established comedian". But may not be an improvement.
  • "a mainstay of the popular Christmas pantomime scene": Is this popular in the sense that everyone liked it, or popular in the sense that it was looked down upon by superior types?
  • "and secured many private bookings for royalty": Reads as if he made the bookings for the royalty to star in! Maybe "appearing before royalty"?
  • "In 1914 he debuted in film when he appeared in the comedy short George Robey Turns Anarchist, but he had only modest success in the medium": Maybe a "he" or two too many here?
  • "his first legitimate theatre role": Slightly condescending editorial voice here!!! Can we rephrase to avoid "legitimate" (does this make pantomime illegitimate? I'd agree wholeheartedly there!)
  • Is the lead lacking a little summary of why he was so important? There looks to be a few things in the legacy section which could go here.

Early life:

  • "and its tree lined pavements were flanked by large, well-kept houses." This seems a little over-described here.
  • " Robey's parents both died during the First World War; his father of a heart attack and his mother as a result of an injury she had sustained during an air raid": Were the two deaths connected?
  • Is there a way to cut a few of the "Robey"s in the first paragraph?
  • "In the later months of 1880, the Wade family moved to Germany": Why?
  • "He enjoyed life in Germany and was impressed with the many operatic productions held in the city and the way the locals treated the arts as an integral part of their daily lives": A few too many ands in this sentence.
  • "When he was 14, Robey moved in with a clergyman's family in the German countryside": Why?
  • The note on his supposed attendance at Cambridge is a little confusing. Where did the claim come from? The text suggests that it was Robeys's claim, but the note suggests that he played on the "supposition" that he did so. It can't really be both. And did he really convince anyone?
    • According to Cotes, Robey himself claimed to have studied there. This set the ball rolling and the likes of Max Beerbohm carried on the rumour, long after Robey had abandoned it. Rather than correct them, he let them keep the rumour alive as I suppose it's better to have "studied" at Cambridge than any lesser university! I have tweaked it a little. Cassiantotalk 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the end of "Music hall characterisations" so far. A good read! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Success in pantomime and the provinces

  • " had signed the comedian on a £25-a-week, three-month contract": Without using any of those godawful inflation templates, or measuring worth, or anything like that, could we give a vague indication about how much this was? Perhaps how it compared to other stars at the time?

Sporting interests

  • "Robey was asked by the English cricketer Harry Wrathall to take part in a charity match at the Yorkshire County Cricket Club. Robey played so well that Wrathall asked him to return the following weekend": As written, it looks at first glance like he was playing cricket; I think we need to specify that he was playing football.
  • "By 1903, Robey was a semi-professional player and was signed as an inside forward by the Millwall Football Club and scored many goals for the club at national level.": And...and...and. Also, I'm not too sure about "at national level" here. Could we be more precise at what level he was playing? First division? Second division? Friendly games?
  • I think you saw my comments on the cricket in the sections above.

Now down to the end of "Oswald Stoll". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here:

  • "The show's casting was controversial with critics": To disregard your request to not ask for elaboration (!), why was this?
    • "Controversial" was the wrong word, so I have used "doubt" instead. I have also added a ref which I had originally missed. Cassiantotalk 20:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa! It can't be what you wrote, Mr. C. I understood this to mean that the critics expected ROBEY to play the dame and were surprised. Assuming that's what you meant, I have changed it to: "Although the critics were surprised by the casting, it appealed to audiences..." If that's not what you meant, let's try again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another film followed in 1916 called The Anti-frivolity League,[75] followed the next year by another film, Doing His Bit.": Film...film

Zig-Zag to Joy Bells:

  • "The Italian writer Emilio Cecchi gave Robey a glowing review...": If you are interested in trimming, I'm not sure that this quote adds much to the sum of our knowledge.

Sorry this is coming quite slowly, but I'm up to the end of the Zig-zag section now. On the subject of length, I'm always writing articles which are too long. There may be a few parts here and there which could safely be trimmed if you are wanting to reduce the length; personally, I think you are just about OK at the moment. I tend to take the optimal length to be around 8,000 words and try to trim to that sort of length. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I'm finding the breaks a big help in keeping in top of things, cheers! Cassiantotalk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films and revues of the early 1920s:

  • "George Robey's Day Off (1919) showed the comedian acting out his daily domestic routines to comic effect,[90] but the picture failed at the box office. The British film maker John Baxter concluded that film producers did not know how best to apply Robey's stage talents to film.": Too many "films"! I would also suggest rewording as "George Robey's Day Off (1919) showed the comedian acting out his daily domestic routines to comic effect,[90] but failed at the box office". And (maybe Mr Riley can help here) is it box-office?
  • "Robey admitted that he had difficulty in differentiating between the business of film and variety theatre, with the former providing little room for his customary improvisational humour.": If trimming is required, this could go as it makes essentially the same point that Baxter did in the previous sentence.
  • "A sign that his popularity was continuing to increase came in August 1920 when he was depicted in scouting costume for a series of 12 Royal Mail stamps in aid of the Printers Pension Corporation War Orphans and the Prince of Wales Boy Scout Funds.": Maybe just "A sign of his increasing popularity ..."?

Marriage breakdown:

  • "Robey, however, resented having to grow a beard for the role and despised the foreign climate": We state the location as being in France in the note, but not in the main body. That makes the work of the reader a little harder.

Venture into legitimate theatre:

Down to the end of the legitimate theatre section now. Part of me wonders if some of the lists of roles and locations could be trimmed a little? Not a huge problem at all, but I sometimes find these a little wearing in the biographies of performers. But it's not really detracting so far, as we are kept entertained by various tales and anecdotes, but it is worth considering if you are still worried over length. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a good point. In general, I would mention a role if it was from an important production for Robey, but I would not mention the name of a theatre, especially a provincial theatre, unless it was a really significant venue or particularly significant to Robey's career (I would just mention the city). So, along these lines, do we need: "Paragon Theatre of Varieties", Brighton's "Alhambra Theatre", Manchester's "Comedy Theatre", Birmingham's "Palace Theatre", Vancouver's "Empress Theatre", Woolwich's "Royal Artillery Theatre", Bristol's "Hippodrome Theatre", Burnley's "Palace Theatre", Sheffield's "Empire Theatre"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearean roles:

  • "At the start of 1935 Robey accepted his first Shakespearian role, as Falstaff in Henry IV, Part I, which caused much surprise in the press and some worry by his variety fans that he might retire the Prime Minister of Mirth.": Why not just "surprise"? And should it be "worry from his fans"?

Radio and television debut:

  • "The popular interview brought Robey over a thousand letters from listeners": "Popular interview" could be interpreted in a few ways, so maybe "the well-received interview"? And the interview didn't bring him anything, so what about "as a result of the interview..."?
  • "The press were warmly impressed": Not keen on the adverb here.
  • In the quote following on from "The press were warmly impressed...", there is a full stop followed by an ellipsis.
  • "In the later months of 1936, Robey repeated his radio success with a thirty-minute programme entitled "Music-Hall", which he recorded especially for American audiences, to honour the tenth birthday celebrations of the National Broadcasting Corporation.": Redundancy?
  • "he had met on his frequent visits to the Oval and Lord's cricket grounds over his fifty-year membership.": And to return to this, and taking on board your comment above, he wasn't a member of the MCC fifty years before this interview, as he became a member in 1905. So I would still prefer "association" here. Not a big deal, but as written this is slightly inaccurate.

Second World War:

  • "Aware of demand in Australia": Not quite clear what the demand is for here.
    • For his act, clarified but may need checking. I have said "Owing to popular demand for his act..."
      • I think that "aware of demand" is much better than "owing to popular demand", and we certainly need to say where. I think that the only change needed to satisfy Sarastro is to add the "for his act". I've made the change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in health:

Legacy:

  • Does this section really describe his legacy, or more about his comic style? Perhaps this isn't the best title for the section. Additionally, is there anything general that could be said here about his personality? (It comes across throughout, but I was wondering if there were any pithy quotes)

And that's it from me. A great piece of work, very readable, and feel free to ignore any of my comments if you don't agree. Let me know when this reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk)

Comments from Crisco

edit

After doing those images, I'll try and give some prose comments. Have you had a check of the copyright on these images yet? (BTW, if you could have a look at my considerably shorter article (PR) that would be much appreciated)

Thankyou. I have done the best I can on the images and with the exception of perhaps one or two, I think they are ok. I will happily drop in on Djajakusuma in the next day or two. Cassiantotalk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping ahead...

OK chaps, I will be retiring this peer review now, so I would like to thank one and all for participating. I have thoroughly enjoyed answering each and every comment and I feel the article has benefitted greatly from all of your input. Special thanks goes to Ssilvers for fixing my all to frequent mistakes and introducing excellent opportunities for the article which I had missed. Onwards and upwards to FAC, so I hope to see you all there! Cassiantotalk 19:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D. Djajakusuma

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC and would like some feedback regarding prose and accessibility to those not well-versed in Indonesian history.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • "Upon invitation from Usmar Ismail," Perhaps, "After being invited by Usmar Ismail".
  • " before leaving it after completing the comedy Masa Topan dan Badai in 1964." The before/after is unpleasing. Is the name of the film really relevant for lede purposes?
Early life
  • " As such, in early 1943" perhaps "Accordingly, in early 1943"
  • I suggest the various translations of Cultural Centre be consigned to a footnote. That sentence could usefully be split
  • "To promote a sense of …" this sentence might also usefully be divided.
INR
  • "Anwar later wrote that he had also gone to Banten to ask a kyai to make him impervious to bullets." This sentence is ambiguous, centering around the "also" Either someone else went to Benten or Anwar went somewhere else, I imagine. And who's him?
  • "when the Dutch colonial government held control of Jakarta" perhaps "with the Dutch colonial government in control of Jakarta"
Entry etc.
  • " General Assault of 1 March 1949" link?
  • Nothing blue yet, sadly. Redlinked (I have several books here to write an article with).
  • "owing to the smile of a waitress" Hm, I don't know. Maybe "transfixed by the smile of a waitress" or similar.
  • "while at UCLA " Did he transfer from USC? Please also check the use of "UCLA" a little later on. Perhaps also one of the "lessons" (used twice in sentence) could be changed?
Last years w/
  • " the director had abandoned too many traditional aspects of the puppetry." perhaps "ignored" for "abandoned"?
  • Fair enough
  • "their two teenaged daughters who are in the throes of puberty" perhaps "adolescence" for "puberty"?
  • Alright
Style
  • "This regional-focused adaptation" Huh?
  • "Indonesians should focus on local arts and not continue to depend on Western theories." Is "theories" really the word you want? It seems oddly contrasted with "arts".
Legacy
  • I'm not sure what you're describing there is "legacy".

Anyhoo, good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

Lead:

  • "During the Japanese occupation from 1943 to 1945 he was a translator and thespian, and during the four-year national revolution he worked for the military's educational division, several news agencies, and in drama.": Is there a way to avoid “during…during"?
  • "In 1951, Djajakusuma joined the National Film Corporation (Perfini) after he was invited by Usmar Ismail.": What about “In 1951, Djajakusuma joined the National Film Corporation (Perfini) at the invitation of Usmar Ismail."
  • "Djajakusuma released a further eleven films with the company before leaving it in 1964.": I think we could lose the “it"
  • "much of his energies": Should this be “most of his energies"?

Early life:

  • Nobleman is a bit vague, and for those too lazy to follow the link, may be misleading. Could a word of clarification be added, or even a note? People generally known as nobles do not usually have to work!
  • In a British context, definitely. In a contemporary Javanese context, they were the only ones qualified for certain jobs (such as bupati). In the early 20th century they were also the only ones who qualified for government schooling, so many of the people who held jobs which required an education were (minor) nobles. Journalists such as [[Tirto Adhi Soerjo], political leaders such as Sukarno, lawyers such as Soepomo... anyways, changed to have "priyayi" show directly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Djajakusuma was the fifth child of six born to the couple, which lived comfortably off Djojokoesomo's salary as government official.": Should this be “who lived comfortably"?
  • "With his friends, he would act out the bedtime stories his mother told him with his friends.": Repetition of “with his friends"

Indonesian national revolution:

  • "The group would travel throughout the city" and “after the arrival of the Netherlands Indies Civil Administration, they would sometimes attempt to spy" and “Djajakusuma would listen to international news broadcasts": Do we need “would"?
  • "these were printed in underground newspapers": Perhaps too idiomatic? Unless it was for The Wombles? (And I’m sure you don’t get that reference, but someone might…)

Entry to film:

  • "Djajakusuma helped Ismail adapt the event for the screen": “helped Ismail to adapt" would sound more natural to my ear.
  • "had to be powered by a car battery owing to the inability to buy the necessary equipment": Should this be “their inability"?
  • "the film featured some of the first nudity in a local production": Does this mean an Indonesian production, or something more specific?

Last years:

  • "This film was reportedly held by the censorship bureau for almost a year.": I’m not a fan of “reportedly"; who reported? How reliable is the story?
  • Removed, as we don't use "reportedly" in the article on the film. The source is Said, who lived through the period and had access to contemporary newspapers; reliable enough, though (as with all contemporary Indonesian sources) quick to cast aspersions on the communists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later career:

  • "He is particularly recognised for his revitalising lenong.": By who?

Final years:

  • "In 1980 he made his last film appearance, acting in Ismail Soebardjo's Perempuan dalam Pasungan (Girl in Stocks)": Was this not his only acting appearance? If so, could we specify why the change? (Unless I’ve missed something?)
  • "His adoptive family later recalled that he showed no outward signs of ill health.": Can we explain why he had an adoptive family, and who they were? We seem to have this explanation in the next paragraph.

Reception:

  • We use “garnered" twice; I think once is more than enough!
  • This section gets a little listy in places.

Another good piece of work, and I had no problems in following this at all. Let me know when it gets to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

Apologies for the tardy comments here - distractions on and off Wiki have tied me up recently. I'm taking advantage of the in-flight WiFi on the way to Oslo, which is the first proper,chance I've had to go over this. I've made a few CEs here and there. They are mostly grammatical, rather than stylistic, but feel free to revert anything you don't agree with. More specifically, a few suggestions below to consider: adopt or reject as the mood takes you:

Lead

  • "dedicated but easily angered Djajakusuma": should that be a hyphenated "easily-angered"? I'm not entirely sure, so I'll send up the bat signal for @Tim riley: to comment.
  • I believe the hyphen is necessary for adjectival phrases, but not those with adverbs. Of course, if Tim differs we can hyphenate here.
  • I am no authority on punctuation in general or hyphens in particular, but I'd say as used here you don't want the hyphen. But you'd much better seek the advice one of WP's real experts, such as User:Chris the speller, who has got me out of many a hole of my own digging. I'll look in properly at this PR if it's still open when I've done the two I'm already signed up for. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't use a hyphen in cases like this. WP:HYPHEN sub-subsection 3, bullet point 4 says "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) unless part of a larger compound (a slowly-but-surely strategy)." Chris the speller yack 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "at times he would sneak out of his home after curfew": two things here. Firstly, is "sneak out" encyclopaedic? Secondly, "curfew" suggests a civil or military legal imposition: was this the case?

Done to the start of "Later career": more to follow soon on this very interesting piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final batch

Again, a few further suggestions for you to pick up or ignore as you see fit:

Later career

  • "The second film, meanwhile, was an adaptation": I'm not sure the "meanwhile" is needed here?
  • "His last role behind the screen": There's probably a better way of saying "behind the screen", but my brain is on a go-slow this afternoon

Notes

  • b. "propagandising": fine in AmEng, painful in BrEng. The Americans are happy to turn nouns into verbs, but it is still not ideal in BrEng. Perhaps "with the ultimate goal of (providing or building) propaganda for the Japanese political position"?

All good, and look forward to seeing this at FAC! - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Having done all I signed up to do chez Babe Ruth and Robert Stephenson I am now free to join this peer review. Comments will follow soonest - by bedtime tonight, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very few comments. I did just wonder what variety of English you intend: the consistent "–ise" endings and "theatre" suggest BrEng, but the "natural sciences program" is AmEng. Specific comments, to the end of "Career with Perfini":

  • My early life as a Canadian on the border of the US is showing. I'm aiming for BrE... so that would be natural sciences programme?
  • "He returned to his hometown" – I think as a noun this is usually two words, though just one word when used as an adjective. I may, of course, be wrong. It has been known.
  • "as a translator and thespian" – a thespian? Is that just an actor (in which case the more familiar word is preferable) or something on top, in which case what?
  • "performed both translations" – I'd lose the "both"
  • "The group travelled throughout the city…" – a very long sentence. I'd be inclined to replace the semicolon with a full stop.
  • "hired by Ministry of Information" – hired by the Ministry of Information?
  • "and write them down" – and wrote?
  • "these were printed" – his transcripts were printed, perhaps?
  • "owing to their inability to buy the necessary equipment" – I think this sentence would have more impact if you dropped these nine words. Just a suggestion – to be ignored if you prefer.
  • "Upon his return to Indonesia, he worked with Ismail" – this is the fourth "upon" so far and the phrase is beginning to seem repetitive. Possibly vary here or earlier with "when…"?

More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch from Tim
  • Later career
    • "kidnappings and executions" – I'm uneasy about the latter. "Executions" suggests something carried out by due process of law, rather than assassination or murder, as in this case.
    • "He successfully increased" – do you need the adverb here?
    • "proper financial compensation" – perhaps "reward" rather than "compensation", which implies recompense for injury etc.
      • He was essentially arguing for living wages for the actors. They would get paid a pittance for every performance, meaning they were well below the poverty line. Changed to remuneration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "both modern or foreign" – both modern and foreign?
    • "after ceremonies at the IKJ led by author Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana and prayers at the Amir Hamzah Mosque in Ismail Marzuki Hall led by the poet Taufiq Ismail" – you use the definite article before "poet" but not before "author". I much prefer the former (in good BrEng it is mandatory, though not, I know, in AmEng). There are other examples of included/omitted "the"s throughout the text, and whichever construction you prefer, it might be as well to be consistent.
    • "all of his documents and books" – if you have decided on BrEng you should lose the "of" here.
  • Style
  • Reception
  • Explanatory notes

That's all from me. To my layman's eyes this article seems a model of its kind: clear, easy to read, well balanced and evidently comprehensive. Looking at the list of sources made me sag at the knees a bit, yet though the amount of research has plainly been formidable the scholarship is worn pleasingly lightly. – Tim riley (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Spring

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Level-4 vital article in Art. Important book in the history of environmental regulations, history of pesticide usage, and environmentalism. Listing this under History for that reason.

Would like to see areas where the article need improvement and to be expanded.

I've noticed the article was somewhat lacking recently, so I decided to take material from the main Rachel Carson article that relates to the book over to this article as a starting point. That article has a FA rating, and is very well written.

I have also attempted to improve the lede of the article.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

edit
  • Elaborate on Beyond Silent Spring, particularly since it doesn't have an article. It could actually get its own section.
  • "In regards to the pesticide DDT, Carson never actually called for an outright ban. Part of the argument she made in Silent Spring was that even if DDT and other insecticides had no environmental side effects, their indiscriminate overuse was counter-productive because it would created insect resistance to the pesticide(s), making the pesticides useless in eliminating the target insect populations" - While this isn't in direct violation of WP:NPOV, it comes off as an editorial argument against a pre-established position. There are citations later on that some people thought Carson was calling for an outright ban; either add them up there as well or just remove all mentions in "Contents" of Carson not calling for an outright ban. ...Does this make sense? I hope so.
  • Also, it should be "she makes in Silent Spring", not "made"; this is a general convention for describing stances.
  • The intro's fairly short given the size of the article.
  • You could also probably can the citations in the intro.
  • "Frank Edwin Egler was a contributor to the book." - Obviously, find a source. In addition, though, either merge this into the preceding paragraph (which is also far on the short side) or elaborate significantly on how he contributed.

Tezero (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/April_2014&oldid=610999256"