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.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, at this point in time, the article is progressing well, but could really do with some comments by neutral editors who have a tad more "distance" from the work than we do, and thus can better evaluate any strengths or weaknesses. I'm hoping that it is getting close to featured quality now, and any advice to help get it closer would be greatly appreciated. :)
Thanks, Bilby ( talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from JamieS93
I know this might not be all that thorough, and I'm not experienced with peer reviews, but here's what I noticed when looking through the article:
So that's what I noticed when taking a look at the article. The prose seems to be decent, I don't know about FA-quality, however, didn't take a close enough look at it (the article would probably need a good copyedit reviewing anyway, to reach that higher standard). This type of article does seem like it would be hard to bring together as a well-organized piece, not a messy random pot of information; you and your project seem to have done a nice job with that, though. I hope this helps! Jamie ☆ S93 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief comment from Ruhrfisch I agree with Jamie93's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was nominated for peer review, and
subsequently FAC, where it failed for what I thought was mostly to do with prose and langlit. It was subsequently promoted to GA, but some work has been done subsequently and I would appreciate and welcome some more eyes and opinions before renominate it to FAC again.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it up to FA standard, however I just cannot make it any simpler, therefore a good copyedit is perhaps in order. I've been waiting for months for a copyedit and have yet to find a willing volunteer.
Thanks, Harlsbottom ( talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
As always, thanks for the comments! Ruhrfisch, I take your point about ILL, however I'm quite simply too busy to borrow books, and I'm in enough do-do with the British Library lending service as it is. At the moment I'm in the States for six weeks so borrowing is somewhat impractical. At any rate, it just so happens I've found a raft of articles and correspondence written by the subject which I was perusing just as I saw this pop up on my watchlist. More work to be done! Regards, -- Harlsbottom ( talk | library) 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although it needs better sourcing for such things as the various Emmy nominations for the TV appearances, I think it has many if not most of the requirements for Featured List status. Be brutal, tell me what needs to happen to make this an
FL.
Thanks, Otto4711 ( talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad this is helpful - not sure what else to say, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have spent a tremendous amount of time creating a neutral article (often difficult with schools) that is well referenced and is thorough, leaving nothing wanting. I believe it is time to face a broader range of editors to see what they thing. I hope that you can give honest feedback, and feel free to improve the article yourself! This is my first time taking an article anywhere, so I hope I haven't messed this up!:-D
Many thanks guys,
rocketman89 (
talk)
23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. There is a lot of information in the article, but there are some gaps and issues of organization. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want suggestions on how to improve the prose; I feel this is the best place for it, as the LOCE backlog is huge.
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like additional comments, please respond here! MeegsC | Talk 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You really should answer those questions in the article, not here! If I had those questions, so will many other readers... MeegsC | Talk 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to find out how it looks after a major overhaul, and how it can be further improved toward B class status.
Thanks,
Tadakuni (
talk)
22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because The Rambling Man suggested it.
Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous 24 GO LAKERS! 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so Maclean says that he has a source for Harry Warner's managing 12 games. That we can use, and if I can see the source, I will make a stub for him as well so that the list is not incomplete. The last thing I think we need to do in terms of the actual list is find out why Cookie Rojas managed three games in 2001.
On a personal note, I'd like to thank the author for being patient with us as reviewers. I know from experience what a grueling process FLC can be; it's one of the reasons I don't even begin to touch FAs. I think that if Maclean, K. Annoyomous24, myself, and other reviewers work together, we can finish this up and get this list to FL. I would suggest that since it's been through two failed noms in two weeks, we should wait about a month and make sure it's perfectly clean and shipshape before putting forth another nomination. If all goes as planned, I'll gladly come on as a co-nom, if it meets our standards. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I merged a more detailed introduction from my sandbox into the article. [1] Is this ok? -- maclean 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an ongoing and at the same quite controversial topic. This make the process to improve this article to the
WP:GA level quite challenging. I would like to get guidelines what additionally has to do be done before the
WP:GAN.
Thanks, Beagel ( talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get this article to GA, and hopefully FA. Any concerns, I will address.
Thanks, S R X 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks for all and any comments. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is already very good, and I don't think it will be a huge push to get it to FA status. I made some punctuation tweaks as I was reading and noted some other items below. I know red links are allowed, but they are always ugly to me, especially in the lead. Any chance of writing stubs for Euston and maybe Willie Mathews?
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… six months ago it failed a
WP:FLC. At that time, only one Awards list was Featured. A few more have been promoted since then, and I'd like to know whether the comments at the FLC still stand, or if my fellow Wikipedians' thoughts are now different.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards won by Degrassi/archive1 is the location of the FLC.
Also, might it be better to split the article up for the different series in the franchise, or as suggested at the FLC, group them by year, or in one big table?
Thanks, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 05:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its a good article that the two of us are trying to get to FAC. We are looking for more sufficient information before then, and it'll be a big bonus if we can get all problems solved before FAC, so that goes smoothly. Thanks!
Thanks, Mitch32(
UP)
19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) &
Juliancolton (via IRC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs):
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done quite a bit of work on improving this article on one of the most influential men in the history of
association football. Surprisingly little actually seems to be recorded about him, but I'm hoping there's just enough here to get the article to
GA status. Please let me know what more I might need to do...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. We're peer-reviewing again, but this time we'd like approval to promote the article to Class A in preparation for going to WP:FAC. The standards for Class A can be found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment along with a detailed rubric. We believe we have satisfactorially met the requirements of the previous peer review (see below) and are pretty sure we're ready. EagleFalconn ( talk) 20:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Howdy,
I'm looking to get this article up to snuff. Its been pretty idle ever since my original edits on it in 2005(!!!). Its currently listed Class-B in Wikiproject:Chemistry (which seems to be pretty idle to me...) so I'm coming here for peer review.
Not done I can tell you right now that one thing none of you are going to like is the sourcing on the article.
Not doneWhile the article needs to be sourced more thoroughly, before I do that I feel like the article has organizational issues. I just redid the beginning, and I feel like its decently strong, but the article delves into other issues later in the article and I'm not sure about relevance.
I'd primarily like comments regarding requests for additional material, pedagogical issues, flow of English, material that could be reorganized, moved to another part of the article, moved to another article, or removed.
Thanks, EagleFalconn ( talk) 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article about a small urban creek for peer review because I've done most of the work on it with relatively little feedback. I'd like someone interested in geography to take a look to make sure that I haven't omitted anything essential and that the article reads well and makes sense throughout. I've worked extensively on two other small creeks,
Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and
Balch Creek in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, and my plan is to take these as far as I can and to create comprehensive articles about the
Columbia Slough and
Tryon Creek as well. These four creeks and a slough plus the
Willamette River and the
Columbia River are the main water bodies in the city of Portland. My intent is to improve or to encourage improvement on these five small ones, to take each through PR, GA, and on to FAC if possible.
Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is already FA, and Balch Creek is a current GA nominee. Fanno has come about as far as I can take it without the help of additional sharp-eyed editors.
Thanks, Finetooth ( talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Comments from Wackymacs ( talk · contribs)
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently become a Good Article and I would like to see what changes are needed for it to reach FA status. For comparison, please see
Eris (dwarf planet), a featured article on a similar body.
Thanks,
Serendi
pod
ous
22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Comment I did some quick copyediting, and two suggestions: move "Orbit" before "Physical characteristics"... that's the way it is at Eris. I recommend keeping this consistent between articles. Also, I'd recommend moving "Classification" to right after "Discovery"; that's where it is at Eris, and it seems pretty logical to keep this information near the beginning. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Cm:
Archive PR and start a FAC? Nergaal ( talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its Samuel Johnson, and, well, he needed a lot of work, and I just came on to add citations. I'm sure there are others with important skills that can contribute or recommend the much needed work to actually make this a decent page.
Thanks, Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it towards FAC. It's recently had one peer review, and I've made some slight changes, but hoped to get some more input, particularly any suggestions about whether the lead is long enough or what changes may be appropriate to add.
Thanks, Peanut4 ( talk) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll come back and look at the post-war years later...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope all of the above helps!!!! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to know if the article requires additional work before nominating it as a GAC. If not, I'm looking for constructive criticism of any kind. The biggest problem has been finding actual sources, and as it turns out, most of them can probably only be found in BYU libraries and I don't have access. I've asked for help in at least three instances from the LDS project and their members but I haven't had much of a response. Thanks, Viriditas ( talk) 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I reread it and think it would help to explain the difference between a LDS temple (which there are few of) and a LDS "church" (which there are many of). I also would make sure the references all give as much info as consistently as possible - place of publication for books for example. Otherwise nothing comes to mind, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A temple is a building dedicated to be a house of God and is reserved for special forms of worship. A temple differs from a church meetinghouse, which is used for weekly worship services.
Redtigerxyz's Comments:
Yes, i agree the links i provided may not be RS, be still for an article to be complete other sources except the internet like newspaper articles, books can be refered. Rick Satterfield one does mention murals. All the best imporving the article. Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that other than the gaps in the episode guide it's close to GA class. General comments are welcome as always but specifically, is not having an entry for each episode under the "topics" column going to be a deal-killer for ever reaching GA?
Thanks, Otto4711 ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a main operating system, and quality info should be given as to it (besides,
Mac OS X is GA, and this isn't?!) :-)
Thanks, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs) - Put simply, this needs tons of work before its even GA standard.
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am the main contributor to the article and would like a critical, rigorous PR to help prep for FAC.
Thanks, Eustress ( talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for editing pursuant to Wiki MOS and appropriate criteria for listed project inclusions.
Thanks, E. Lighthart ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I will say some of the same things here I said at Wikipedia:Peer review/L'Opéra of the Palace of Versailles/archive1 Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article up to
Good Article status. A little work has been done already, but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks,
Cinemaniac (
talk •
contribs •
critique)
01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Who doesn't love Bugs? This is a great article to want to bring to GA, so I definitely applaud your effort. Some ideas/suggestions:
I hope this helped! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via my talk page. María ( habla con migo) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, the comments from others will helpfully help for the improvement of the article.
Thanks,
Philscirel (
talk)
18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, it's too early for this. WP:Peer review is for stable articles, and this is not the case here. The right venue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You are new to WP and I suggest you stick around and get some edits under your belt first. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(AA 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
Our problem is to maintain NPOV and Zaman is the worst source to use as reference, since it's Gulen unoffical newspaper. In the entire history of Zaman, there is not even a single sentence published slighly critizising Gulen. Besides this article is about Gulen, not Ergenekon. There is no connection with Ergenkon and Gulen. You can not label all other newspapers under the influence. If there is a newspaper under influence, it's Zaman itself. By the way Zaman is not the only one publishing english, there is Turkish Daily News and Hurriyet is among many others. (Just a correction, Zaman is the most distributed newspaper in Turkey, not the most-selling, since it's widely distributed freely, even I receive free copies left to my apartment.) (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
This article has not a shred of neutrality and this is the third time in one month that Philscirel ( talk · contribs) has asked for PR, when the article is nowhere near stability. Maybe he should find something else to do. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
i reverted your edits. the article is worked for weeks and word by word. you deleted 40 links from the article. NPOV is not deletion of the well-documented information. please discuss first. Philscirel ( talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has serious problems with NPOV. I think -besides deleting 40 links-, the any references to Gulen organizations should also be removed. Clerance should start from the one third of the references pointing Zaman, other one third is pointing to Gulen's own home page, so in entire wikipedia history, NPOV never been damaged so much (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently created the article and have greatly expanded it since it's original draft. I was wondering what more I should do to possibly make a push for Featured List. :) Thanks,
Ɔrassic (
talk)
21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: My initial impression is that the list itself looks pretty good, but at present is let down by rather poor lead and History sections. If you look at other football manager lists on WP:FL you will see that some don’t have a History section, merely a short lead followed by the list. Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Oxford United F.C. managers are examples of this. On the other hand, the managerial lists for both Manchester clubs have History sections. It is for you to decide what strategy to follow. There are many problems with the History section as it stands, and if you decide to keep it the question you should ask yourself is: what information are you giving in the section that is not in the table already?
Please note that above are by no means the only prose faults in the History section which, if it is to be retained, ought to have a complete rewrite.
In view of the multiple prose problems, I personally think you would be wise to take the lead only option. Take a look at some of the manager lists where this has been done, to give you some ideas. I hope you have found this review helpful; if you would like me to look at it again after you have responded, leave a message. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its topic is extremely important, yet the article's treatment is like a school essay and random gathering of quotations by scholars, not a proper encyclopedia article. It would benefit from review by multiple, experienced editors.
Thanks,
ZimZalaBim
talk
04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Sillyfolkboy
If these problems are significantly dealt with I will post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what can be done to improve it further, in terms of style, and other such other factors. This is all the information I was able to get about the subject, and probably all there is at this moment. The article is comprehensive anough for an FA, but even so, I don't feel like it is suitable for such a label. So besides possible improvements, i would also like to know if this article is A-Class.
Thanks,
diego_pmc (
talk)
20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I liked reading about the 5 different stories that were inside the book below the preface. The only things I found wrong with the article was reference #10, that wasn't really a reference, and ref. #11, youtube videos aren't really that reliable for references, you should try to find a different reference. Over all, if you fix those problems, the article could be an A class one.thinkjjgyuitgbn bmv m,nklnmdeded Thanks! (i hope i pass) ~ California Girl 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Although I've read some of the Harry Potter books or seen the movies, I did not know about these stories until reading this article. I am a quasi-outsider with a few suggestions for improvement.
If you have questions or want more comments, please say so here. I have added the page to my watchlist. If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth ( talk) 02:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
So, the main weak point of the article might be that it primarily comes from one book—as mentioned in the article, Masuda's been glossed over in English language Japanese film scholarship and criticism—but I think it manages okay. Also, haven't found a reference for the Kinema Junpo readers choice award yet. Anyway, I'm looking for any glaring errors or omissions and maybe some opinions on whether this has GA or FA potential. Thanks very much,
Doctor Sunshine
talk
20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just passed the GA process. Need suggestions for improvements to reach FA status.
Thanks, Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Thanks for the review. Will contact you when i am done with referencing issues. Reply to Comments:
Redtigerxyz ( talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have requested this article to be peer reviewed because I believe this article can be improved to an almost featured status. The article's few
FAC responses cited instability for opposing it's candidacy, something that could be contested if this article is improved. I am looking for general feedback, but mostly feedback on where this article need more/less detail, and how the sections could be restructured so this can become a more balanced article.
Cheers. -- Reaper X 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs serious ref work Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (I agree with Ealdgyth's comments on the references - more are needed in many places in the article too, such as the first paragraph of the Timeline section). If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been around 2 years since promotion to FA. I was thinking of putting it through a FA review but then I thought a peer review might be a better first step. I was wondering whether any areas need expansion due to changes in technology,treatment and knowledge in this time. I know some areas are lacking citation and I'll work on that ASAP. Just any suggestiongs in general would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ziphon (
ALLears)
12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Done I've tried to explain it better.
Ziphon (
ALLears)
09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As this was a FA, I jumped right into a detailed review. A quater of the way through I nearly abandoned this as I would not normally put so much time into an article put up for review with such obvious flaws not yet fixed. This needs a lot of work and I hope you really mean to address the issues. Some general issues: Sometimes things are written as if the article is "AsthmaCoincidenceinternallyincomprehensiblediagnosingreversibleasthmaavoidanceorganizationpreventativerepetitive attack"excessive rather than "AriskAsthmaathleticscomprehensivequarterAsthmaAsthmasmatha"; make an effort to clarify that you mean "during an attack" or similar. Often the article focuses rather narrowly on children, more generalized or specifically adult info is much needed. {{ Fact}} tags need to be taken care of.-- BirgitteSB 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to FAC shortly, and am looking for help in making sure the prose flow is good, that it is not wordy and verbose, and that it makes sense to a non-horseperson. Also, suggestions on exactly where to LIST the article would be nice.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. Thanks for all of your work checking refs, Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Second look
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this list to be as acurate as possible and because I hope this list became a Featured List on Wikipedia.
Thanks, Jaespinoza ( talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from JamieS93 – Not a full review, just a couple of comments:
Hope that little bit helps! :) Jamie ☆ S93 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after seeing this article survive AfD, I'd really like to work on bringing it up to
Good Article status. A little work has been done already (mostly on the naming), but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks. —
Cinemaniac (
talk •
contribs •
critique)
16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone an overhaul and I want to see what could be improved to get it to Featured List status. ~
Ameliorate
U
T
C @
08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.
Thanks, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a LONG article, but necessary to be comprehensive. I am looking for input in the following issues:
I would like to take this article to FA. Thank you for reading it. Moni3 ( talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is now looking fairly comprehensive, and a while back I think I trimmed excessive self-promotion. I'm still a bit worried that it sounds self-promotional, but as a listener of the show I'm having a hard time looking at it objectively. I think it's time that some fresh eyes look at it. Does this article have a neutrality problem, and if so, what specific parts of it would need to be modified, and how? Thanks! --
Beland (
talk)
15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Good Article, and ultimately perhaps higher, status, but I've been the primary contributor for some time, so I'm not sure of where to seek out improvement.
Thanks, matt91486 ( talk) 17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to FAC at some point, and would appreciate help with jargon, and prose.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is the current
Shakespeare project collaboration for FA. We need someone to go through it with a fine comb in preparation for FAC.
Thanks, Wrad ( talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is a B-class article that appears to have potential. While it may have some rough edges, with a bit of work this article could make it to GA status. It is currently a Good Article Nominee, and I am looking for feedback from other editors as to what they think of it. Any suggestions of any sorts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
J.T Pearson (
talk)
13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I bring the eyes of an outsider to this article, and I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you have questions or would like more comments, please ask. I hope these comments are helpful. Please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth ( talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA and it needs a good going-over by some fresh eyes. One specific concern is that it is fairly heavily dependent on the Gorman book.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is a generally well-written article about an interesting person. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article from the Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items, which is where I found this one. If you have questions, please ask. Finetooth ( talk) 04:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been up for a "featured article" nomination several times and has been denied. I have extensive knowledge of this movie and its production and I would like to help this article achieve its goal of a "featured article".
I have been looking over the Talk page and I noticed many submissions and clean-up has been done since this article was last nominated.
What I really want is more input from other editors as to how we can improve this article. I believe it really stands out, but Im sure it could use some minor work to top it off.
Let us know what you think guys.
Thanks,
DrNegative (
talk)
07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem on the copyedit—I'm just finishing up a couple other projects. I should be able to get started right away, but you probably won't see any edits until tomorrow. Today will just be analysis and note-taking. I look forward to seeing The Lion King pass its FA review. -- AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's enough to work with for now.
If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)That's it. I hope these suggestions were helpful. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached a stage where if other modifications are made to the article it will begin to ruin what appears to be a strong and quality article.
Thanks, Mcwesty ( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)\
Ruhrfisch comments: I am reallly not sure I understand the comment above - this is a good start, but it is not a Good Article and nowhere near WP:FA yet. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (and hopefully not ruin). If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I had a feeling the references where going to be an outstanding problem. I'll try and make the neccessary changes when I can find the time.
What I meant in my commment is that people are continuing to make edits to the article, and if that continues as it has been the article could very easily be ruined from "over editing".
Thanks, Mcwesty ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg
Jones
II
23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
That's a start - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring the article up to a Good Article status.
Thanks, KelleyCook ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and topic. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some comments to improve it. Also, I believe it could become a Featured List.
Thanks, Saudi 9999 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I do not think this article meets the crteria to be considered a list, so it can not become a Featured List. I think it needs a lot of work to get to Featured Article, but that seems the correct goal to me.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
NapHit comments
That's all for now NapHit ( talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso ( talk) 09:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently helped take it to
GA status, and would like some fresh, experienced eyes to give some feedback as to where it can be improved to help it on it's way to
FA (and to point out just how shoddy my prose is!). I am wondering whether the lead is ok, and whether I should separate the international career segments more from the club career section as a lot is covered in its own section. I also feel the Honours section is a bit of a mess, and any suggestions about improving it would be appreciated!
I would like to note that the absence of photos is a known issue, and we are working on it, but there aren't any currently available.
Thanks, - Toon 05 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was just demoted from featured list, and since then, the article has changed drastically. In fact, it is practically a whole different article. Any comments welcome. Thanks, —
Parent5446
☯ (
message
email)
22:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Haha169
Ah...good. I was just about to start a peer review session. I was also just scanning the FL criteria, and I also think it meets pretty much everything listed there. I would, however, like to see a couple cites in the lead, especially the end of paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 refs seem to be listed in "General".
Good job. I really liked the coloring syntax improvements. -- haha169 ( talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a featured list and would like an outside opinion or two before I take it to FLC. The lead is based on
Boston Red Sox seasons and the table is modeled after
St. Louis Cardinals seasons (both of which are featured), with some changes here and there. This is my first attempt to get a page featured, so help is appreciated.
Thanks, Giants2008 ( 17-14) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Filing a more proper PR request after learning that failed FACs may only file PR requests at least two weeks after such, I hope to prepare this article once again for FA, or even GA, status in preparation for the Tinuom Festival in Cabatuan on September 10, the municipality where the airport is situated. After taking into account many comments from a PR and an FAC, I hope to be able to receive more comments in order to better improve the article. Thanks! --
Sky Harbor (
talk)
12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get some feedback with a view to improving the article. Perhaps it'll go over to FLC at some stage. I'm away from home right now, but I'll be checking back regularly. Thanks. 86.44.xx.xx. or in this case...
212.2.165.61 (
talk)
20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick comments from ~
Eóin (
talk)
Got it started for you. ~ Eóin ( talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a seminal topic in neuroscience today. Articles appear almost daily in HHMI, ScienceDaily, and EurekAlert about Neuroplasticity and a search in any library database brings up scores of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. The most important work on this subject has been done within the past 10 years. In its present state, the article is rather sketchy, and as one reader observed on the discussion page, it "lacks soul." I have made some minor efforts at revision within the past two days. I have been working on a research paper for an undergraduate class, and therefore have done a great deal of reading on current findings in the field. My progress has been somewhat impeded by the fact that everything is written either for the rank lay person (completely unschooled in the sciences) or for fellow neuroscientists. A comprehensive article on Neuroplasticity would be a great boon to the public on every level. Just think: The brain can rewire itself...! This has been extensively documented and is something that everyone needs to know about.
Another reason for my request: Synaptogenesis, one form of Neuroplasticity, has earned a deserved HIGH ranking in importance, although Neuroplasticity is the more inclusive topic.
Thanks,
FrancineEisner (
talk)
18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs):
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, Wackymacs, I left a comment on your talk page, but on reconsideration I think you've given me a good deal of info that will assist my improving the article. I will put in a "History" section; that was my instinct in my own (unpublished) essay done for an undergraduate course.
I realize that I'll need to cite the original articles; I'll be able to access them from my university's library database, but I wanted to make a "quick fix" and the use of the ScienceDaily web site (actually press releases for the original articles) was what I was able to come up with "on the fly."
What I intend to do is to produce a new page which omits terminology specific to statistics and neuroscience as much as is humanly possible. Please feel free to offer comments as you wish.
Best, FrancineEisner ( talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - IMO your comments are right on target. I also appreciate your offer. So far, my university library has served me well, except for a few references which have abstracts on the ScienceDirect database but lack available full-text articles (!?) Perhaps they are available somewhere else. I've also been pondering a method of reconciling how labile the topic is. There could be one section (designed to be constantly updated) listing the most current findings, especially on a molecular and cellular level. The rest of the article could remain quite stable, except of course for the edits inevitable in Wikiland,lol. FrancineEisner ( talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because our group is expending this article as a school project, and our grades depend on the achieving a “good article” status. Any help is welcomed and appreciated.
-- Thanks, Group I —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vucko84 (
talk •
contribs)
Comments from Lazulilasher Hey there. As noted above, good job overall. The article does a decent job of introducing the topic, however more information will be required to pass GA.
Ok, I hope this helps get you to GA. Best of luck with your schooling and I hope you stick around Wikipedia even after you complete your course.
Feel free to approach me with any concerns on my talk page. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after rewriting it and getting it to GA, I'd like some feedback before an FAC. Thanks,
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for ways to improve the article further as it proceeds along in quality status. No rush, but interested in input from some fresh eyes. Thanks,
Cirt (
talk)
21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The scientology story is very interesting, but the article needs work both in prose and analysis.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to see if its ready for a FL nomination. --
Be Black Hole Sun (
talk)
11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: Wouldn't it be better to ask for the review when the current "major revamp", as indicated by the banner, is completed? Brianboulton ( talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram: Ditto to question above.
Copyediting of the first paragraph would help. It currently reads "... of the Roman Empire, until the final demise of the Western Empire in 476 or to the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I in 565." I think "AND" would work better than "OR". And why not give a "from" date, it would be more descriptive. Essentially construct as "this is a list from ___ to ___ in the west and ___ in the east." Done
Also, the intro does not conform to the guidelines of
wp:LEDE. It should provide an overview of the entire article, which in fact consists of several sections and lists, that should all be mentioned in the lead. The 2nd or 3rd paragraph is providing a "Note" about who is NOT in the list; the lead should be describing what the list is, in positive terms. The note belongs somewhere later.
Hope this helps. Done
doncram (
talk)
01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Sillyfolkboy:
Try engaging with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome to get the article looked over by someone with more knowledge of the subject. I'm not oblivious to the history of Rome but with my current understanding I can't really comment on the content of the list.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just read about previous concerns regarding the quality of the articles you have brought to FLC. I seriously recommend a second peer review following an improvement to the lead and prose (amongst other things). Be sure that you yourself are very familiar and informed about the subject matter before you make improvements on the article and take it to FLC. If this topic is not your forte then consider working on something else that is. Kind regards. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it's been nearly 16 months since the last peer review, which took place March 2007. Now that the Olympics are coming up, I'd like to hear some improvement suggestions so that I can nominate this article to at least GA status (maybe FA is a possiblility if we work hard enough!)
Thanks, Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The order of sections could use an overhaul, and some sections could be combined with others. While there's no real guideline for international cities, it might help to review the guidelines for US cities and UK cities.
I would recommend focusing on improving prose within main sections, and reducing the number of 2nd and 3rd level subsection headers. Integrate information better into the main topics.
The 'education' section is really just a big list of schools, and many of them are red links. This section should talk about the overall education programs in the city, from the primary schools on up to higher education. How many students are in the city? How many teachers? How are schools ranked? A list of schools can be linked to from this article, but there isn't much value in having that list in this article itself.
The 'architecture' section seems to have very little content and a big gallery. I'd recommend nuking the gallery and focusing more on the content. Maybe move the section to 'geography' and call it cityscape to integrate it in with a discussion of neighborhoods. How does architecture vary in the different parts of the city, for example? Speaking of which, the 'neighborhoods' section is really just a bulleted list, and a collection of tables. This should be converted to prose. The tables themselves offer little value. Move the 'city layout' main section into the 'geography' section.
Change 'politics' to 'government and politics'. There's two important topics that need to be discussed here: local city government and the national capital and government. While I still think that individual subsections should be discouraged, a separate subsection for the national government would be acceptable here.
The 'sports' section needs a bit of work. Let's try and nuke that bulleted list and discuss something abuot sports. The mention of the 2008 summer olympics seems to go straight from that, to what appears to be an advertising promotion for Mike Davis' book Planet of Slums, which doesn't seem appropriate. I'm sure we can find out more about this topic for the article. Don't forget to discuss other sports that take place in the city at other times during the year. The olympics is pretty much a single event.
Try to keep 'see also' items on topic. What in the heck does Yanjing Beer have to do with the city, other than the fact that it's probably brewed here. It seems a bit like an advertising promotion to me?
Those are the big issues as I see them. It's good to see some interest with this article right now, though I wish people started a bit earlier. Not sure if we'll get FA before the olympics or not; GA, maybe? Though there are some at WP:GAN that like to stress the importance of the 'stability' criterion of WP:WIAGA, so the GA review may have to wait until the olympics are over,... Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is extremely detailed and accurate. The content in the article is extremely relevent and should be applauded.
Thanks,
Cadan ap Tomos (
talk)
14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it needs a lot more work before it can be applauded with GA or FA status, but it is a good start. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.
Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article does not have good structure and the last review was 1.5 years ago. General review needed.
Thanks, Kozuch ( talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I note the editor nominating this for peer review appears to have made fewer than 10 edits to the article. Do you plan to follow through on the suggestions of this peer review? Hopefully so. Anyway, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article has
failed the FAC just because it suffers from style of referencing (the citation.....cite xxx template). Can an experienced reviewer who has a good knowledge of FAC's just comment on how to fix these very minor issues and some overlinking if its there. There are no prose or unreliabilty issues. So that need not be reviewed.
Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk) 17:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I'll be able to list the article at PR since I'm renominating the article at FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk) 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Featured Article, and are looking for some feedback before it is submitted to
WP:FAC. It follows a format and style very similar to that of both
Black Moshannon State Park and
Worlds End State Park which are featured articles that we have worked on.
Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher ( talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dtbohrer
Not a lot needs to done to get ready for FAC. But I managed to find some tiny things that could be fixed.
Comments from User:jackyd101 A very nice article, only three comments that sprang to mind below. Congratulations on another fine piece of work.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments and kind words. Dincher ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs your support and improvement in the following areas:
“ | I noticed this because it was first nominated on the FAC. I was pretty surprised that Croesus (who could very well be the richest man who ever lived and whose name is literally synonymous with wealth) wasn't on the list. Admittedly, the list does say that "their wealth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures [sic] are scarce in numbers on the lists." - however, this seems to be a cop-out. Essentially, it says that because you can't establish an exact valuation or CPI for those times, you can ignore them. I think that's poor methodology. | ” |
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this for two reasons:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this biographical-article need more references and information, especially on this person's early days about which information is scarcely available, and also more info. about alleged wrong-doings. A sub-heading detailing his relationship with Chelsea and his former business-partners might also help.
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs more sources and further information.
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it need more concrete information and solid references. Otherwise, this will be classified as a stub.
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel there are more things to be done which I can't see for now. After which, I will pass the article to FAC.
Thanks, -- Efe ( talk) 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that one day it can possibly be promoted to Featured Article status. This is my description from
the withdrawn A-class review from July 6, 2008 (no one was available to review it, so I changed it to Peer review instead):
"I believe this article fully covers the brief professional career of Joe Delaney, and his heroic act of saving children from drowning. There are not many references because many repeat themselves, and also because his career in the early 1980s was so brief. Reference #6 (Shreveport, LA, Times article) is archived from a link that was blacklisted as Wikipedia spam. I knowingly did not include the spammed link because it is not allowed, so don't think I left the reference incomplete, because I wasn't sure of how to deal with it. This article was given GA-status in March 2008. The article's photo is from an Associated Press file, and the photo's source link is located in the file's page at Wikimedia's Commons. The photo in the section "Death and legacy," however, is fully my own work sourced from my personal camera. I feel that this article is fully capable of becoming an A-class article on Wikipedia. This is my first self-nomination for an A-class article, and any help in making this article flawless will be of great help to me."
Requests
This is my very first request for a Peer review and the absolute furthest I've gotten in contributing on Wikipedia (I've worked on some GA articles and Featured lists, but this is the first attempt for a future Featured article. All help is welcome! Thanks! conman33 ( . . .talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was created shortly after the announcement of the game in September 2007. The game is still unreleased, and it is updated as new information is released. Because of a
change in Featured topic criteria, this game and the other unreleased games need to go through peer review for the
Kingdom Hearts topic to stay featured. One such game has already been
reviewed.
Any comments you may have to improve the article are welcome and I'll try to address them as best I can. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Okay, a strange one since I guess this info is subject to change/expansion, but I'll review what's here:
Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while not all that long, I think this article is one of the better written ones that I've seen (that wasn't reviewed) and would like to see what it lacks to become a featured article.
Thanks, Flash176 ( talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (
History of Israel) for peer review because I want to improve it, because despite dealing with a hugely controversial topic it seems to attract little edit warring and because I (said with trepidation) am quite proud of the job I've done on it.
There is a major problem with the
History_of_Israel#1948:_War_of_independence_and_statehood which is very controversial.
The article finishes with the election of Ehud Olmert in 2006 and I am unsure how up-to-date it needs to be.
I would welcome suggestions for improvement to the introduction.
Thanks,
Telaviv1 (
talk)
12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Cool10191
Hope that helps some. Charles Edward 03:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
There have been a great deal of large edits to the article recently, which seem to be spurred on by unaddressed and definitely imminent issues of separation (see
Talk:Republic_of_China_(Taiwan)). Someone is getting a little antsy at the lack of attention the article is getting, but I don't really hold the expertise on Chinese history to do it. Would appreciate a look!
Thanks, Utopianfiat ( talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a tad busy with a nomination over at WP:FAC, but I'll try to get to a more formal review soon! - epicAdam ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of where the article stands. A lot of work has been put into this article to improve it an turn it from a fan-ish plot article into an encyclopedic article on a popular manga and anime franchise.
Things I would like to know are:
Thanks, Farix ( Talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Further comments:
G.A.S 07:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've finished rewriting the episode summaries to the point I can, I can focus on the main article. I still don't see how the plot and character sections are repetitive. Both contain different types of information from different preservatives. Both could be expanded with more detail since details are very limited in both. I also don't have a clue what you are talking about with the dates. I've looked though the text and don't see anything that isn't as precise as sources allow. -- Farix ( Talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Mainly I would like input on improving the reading of the article, copy edit. Being rather familiar with most of the topics in the article, I would also like other editors to point out what areas may need additional clarification or what areas may be pared down. Pretty much anything else you think that would keep it from passing a Feature Article review, please let me know.
Thanks, Charles Edward 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on it and I want to see what people think.
Thanks, Red4tribe ( talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is very close to meeting Featured Article criteria. I'd like this peer review to work as a "mock" FAC; I would ask any editor who chooses to review this article as if it were currently in FAC and hold it according to the following criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
This way, I can aviod a lenthly FAC and get any major (and even minor) concerns out of the way before nomination. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've reworked this list to fit the style of List of former Scottish Football League clubs, which has gained WP:FL status. I have the same aim for this article, and with this peer review I'd like to add any improvements or fix any mistakes to the article that will help it achieve FL status. Cheers, Mattythewhite ( talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment from myself. I think the lead will have to be re-written. I think the featured list criteria have changed to move away from such starts as "This is a list of former member clubs of the Football League, detailing all the clubs to have played in the league since its formation but which are no longer in membership." I'd give The Rambling Man a shout to get some guidance on the best way to re-write it. Peanut4 ( talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has improved substantially over the past few days. The article, about an Indian actress, has recently reached a
GA status. Even since the GA review, it has been substantially edited. Please leave your feedbacks, suggestions and ideas to improve the article further.
Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 09:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a general review of anything I might have missed or any suggestions on what to add, expand, or remove before the article goes for GA.
Thanks,
The359 (
talk)
04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey! So generally a well written article with a lot of love put into it, but a few things:
I didn't see a reference to things like lap counts, lap sizes, duration of the race, the size of the competition, etc. - this may not be important for racing type events, but would have made interesting stats nonetheless.
Also, the idea of one-make auto racing series is rather interesting - did Procar suffer much from this restriction (I'd imagine that other car manufacturers didn't much like the idea), and did this contribute to BMW's decision to stop running Procar? And what role did Procar play (if it did play a significant role) in the development of its host company BMW? Are there any reasons behind BMW's present plans to revitalize Procar, especially given the deteriorating state of the automobile industry in general? Just some interesting questions that would be cool to answer.
Valce1 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to
GA status. There isn't many references, 31, but they are all, besides maybe 3 or 4, from reliable sources. To me it is written fairly well, better than I wrote
Lockdown. I just need to know if it is written well, all grammar issues are fine, everything is spelled correctly, since I can't spell worth crap, and if I have enough references and every little detail that is needed to pass a GA review is fixed. If you don't mind helping me out, thanks,--
Will
C
21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to be a bit harsh because I really think you have the potential to write really well, considering how much effort you've clearly put into this already. There is a fair deal for you to work on, but most of these points will help you improve your writing abilities as a whole and any future articles you may write.
Some other minor things:
Valce1 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it used to have Good Article status but it's since been delisted after some upheaval. Since then, a lot has changed and it has stabilized in the last few days. We are looking to reach GA status once again and would appreciate feedback. Thanks!
Thanks,
Nirvana888 (
talk)
18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I think it is a very good article which contains many information, probably enough needed for this type of subject. It is about Bangladeshis living abroad in the United Kingdom, and I would like to request users to contribute by looking for any mistakes or any suggestions needed to help improve the article so it can be reviewed to as a Good article or Featured article. Many phrases or words are structured in a non-encyclopedia way, mainly in the history section, so that will be needed reviewing as said by Kabir. Thankyou very much.
Thanks, M Miah 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, quite frankly, I would like to see this article become featured.
Thanks, --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what things we can fix before promoting to a GA article (though I realize it's already nominated in GA).
Thanks, Splat5572 ( talk) 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This reads well and is getting close to GA quality. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you find these few comments to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth ( talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure where to go with it. It is a huge article, but much information has already been split off into sub-pages. I think it will ultimately be a 100k+ article,
but that's okay. It's just hard for me to get a handle on which sections need improvement. Some style comments are welcome, but I would rather focus on the arrangement/expansion of the article's content and come back to style issues in a few weeks when the information is in place.
Thanks, Plasticup T/ C 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I am not sure what else it needs to be listed as a featured list.
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as a featured article. Please review 'Campus' and 'Traditions and legends' sections in particular. Any kinds of comments and contributions are welcome! :)
Thanks,
Jainrajat11 (
talk)
17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I hope my comments helped. If you have a question or want me to go deeper into something, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a key article in the
WikiProject Chicago Featured Topic Drive.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm reasonably confident this article is of GA quality, but it's my first stab at doing an article on an individual match, so please let me know if I've lurched a bit too much into journalistic match report mode at any point :-) --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
10:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For balance, should we also say what happened to Wigan in the season(s) following? :-) -- Jameboy ( talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade this article to GA status, so I need several sets of eyes to point out things that I may have missed.
Thanks, Neonblak ( talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I basically just need to know how to improve it, and I have hopes of it becoming a B-Class (or higher) article.
Thanks, Theleftorium ( talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it myself, and I have hopes of it becoming a
Featured Article.
Cheers, -- iMatthew T. C. 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got
West Midlands (Regional) League up to GA status, I've followed essentially the same model for this article about another league in the Midlands region. Let me know if there's any bits I need to "touch up" before I send this one to GAN...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for a copy-edit and general readability of the article. I have been looking at it off & on for a couple months and I think I need other eyes to see it. Subsequently, I plan to nominate it for GA. Any suggestions to further refine & improve this article are appreciated.
Thanks, Mitico ( talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers one of the more famous politically-related trials of the 20th century in the United States. It has been stable (except for some quibbling over a quotation). Any suggestions on how to improve it would be appreciated.
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that review. To help me keep track of what I've fixed I'll note here:
There's still more work to be done, but this review helps focus the effort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it frecently failed FAC and I would like some feedback on how I can help this article have a little star at the top.
Thanks, --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through most of the basic recommendations given for the previous Avatar season articles. Nonetheless, I would still like some general input on the article. Specifically, I would like comments on the lead and overall prose. Other comments are welcome as well. Thanks, —
Parent5446
☯ (
message
email)
22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article seems to be a prime
FA candidate, and one of the steps to candidacy is peer review.
Thanks, CJ Miller. ( That's my name. Don't wear it out.) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement - I do not think this is anywhere near FA quality and think it needs work to get to GA. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking toward expanding it to Featured Article status, and I would appreciate comments that help the page meet the
featured article criteria. Thanks a lot,
Malinaccier (
talk)
00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FA. I'll skip GA because large articles tend to scare off reviewers. I've worked very heavily on this article and the majority is now my own work. I know it needs images but I've requested photos here on wikipedia and by emailing people with photos on flickr (but not with a suitable license...yet). I'm happy with it but i need further opinion/input on - the use of quoteboxes, the use of "notes", the length and content of the article (i.e. does it bore you?) and the use of the rugby infobox (stay or go?). Also I'd appreciate thoughts on the "drug ban" section as it's half and half my own work and others' and not sure if it flows.
Thanks,
Sillyfolkboy (
talk)
14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: here are some suggestions for improvement. Mostly nit-picks, looks pretty good to me.
Hope this helps. Thanks for your reviews here Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Second look I like the photos and the changes. I did not find any typos this time - not sure now what they were. Sections seem fine. I like the placement of Personal life better now. Is Skye a boy or girl (assume the latter)? I do not see any problems on a quick read through, seems FAC ready to me (but I am not a sport editor). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I recieved only one short review from three previous peer reviews. The list has also failed featured list status twice and I would like to know how I can improve the article, so that it follows the
criteria. It arguably it is not "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" and therefore I wonder if using further third-party sources make it one. I am looking for any suggestions about improving the article, meeting the criteria or directly editing the article. Thanks!
Hpfan9374 (
talk)
09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhfisch comments:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on it. I feel that it is, overall, indeed a
WP:GA and am considering nominating it for FAC when everything is in tip-top shape. This is step number one :) So please comment on anything you feel could use improvement, or just anything you feel should be changed. Best,
Happyme22 (
talk)
21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it from a stub and I want to know what needs to be done so the article can become a GA or a FA. I am not a native English speaker and I need some help to check the text for general MOS compliance, especially in the areas of articles and punctuation. I would also very much welcome any advice regarding the tone of the article.
I’ve also got a couple of specific questions:
Thanks, Kober Talk 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I will list this for FL when I return from a wikibreak but see no reason to leave an inactive peer review open.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk)
20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi I'm interested in getting this to featured list standard, but am keen not to use WP:FLC as a peer review, so would like some feedback first before I list it.
Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Shouldn't be too long before it appears at FLC, I think. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the prose in the lead section of the article as well suggestions on the structure of the table:.
The Rambling Man provided me with some suggestions, and I now believe it satisfies at least the basic standards of a good list article, and am hoping to eventually make this a
Featured List article.
Thanks in advance for all your help, Allstar86 ( talk) 08:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it as a Good Article, and want feedback first. My chief question is whether I've covered the topic well enough, or whether there needs to be more (and if so, what?) Also, are there enough references, does it conform to MoS etc.
Thanks, IdiotSavant ( talk) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was tagged as being mixture between prose and timeline and there was no list but a mess. i have now converted it to wikitable episode list and removed a lot of information that shoudl not be there. it has been cleaned up a lot, i like to know any other problems i can try work on and i think the article might b a c class now.
Thanks, Andrewcrawford ( talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to complete a
WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series, and per suggestions there, I need to have this article PR'd, which shouldn't be too hard, as it is just a stub.
Thanks, MASEM 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously as this is a stub, I have barely any comments. Though if you don't think any news/updates will be announced for a long while, you might want to consider merging it to a "Sequel" section of Guitar Hero: On Tour.
That's all that stood out to me. Hope it helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... although its probably a long way from FA, its a GA right now, and I would like to see what could me done to improve it further. Thanks, «
Milk's Favorite
Cøøkie
22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be an FA so I would like feedback on what need to happen to elevate it to that status.
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs your support and improvement in the following areas:
“ | I noticed this because it was first nominated on the FAC. I was pretty surprised that Croesus (who could very well be the richest man who ever lived and whose name is literally synonymous with wealth) wasn't on the list. Admittedly, the list does say that "their wealth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures [sic] are scarce in numbers on the lists." - however, this seems to be a cop-out. Essentially, it says that because you can't establish an exact valuation or CPI for those times, you can ignore them. I think that's poor methodology. | ” |
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Ruhrfisch comments
Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
While this is an unreleased game, it has been suggested for the
WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series that it may be good to complete a PR for this article as to be able to include it in the topic; irregardless or not, I think it is helpful to get a PR done on this to start with.
Thanks, MASEM 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from User:Randomran
I've had a chance to look at it so far. Overall, it's well-written and well-referenced. The problem is the topic is highly unstable. It's comprehensive in the sense that you cover everything that's known, but it can never be comprehensive until the game is actually released. That said, there are a few things you can do to improve the quality right now:
Once again, the prose and the research are both pretty solid for such inherently unstable content. I only found a few grammatical and spelling issues which I have fixed. Just keep the article organized as new information becomes available. Randomran ( talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize this article will be drastically different when the game is released, but here are the issues that stood out to me; mainly grammatical.
There you go. It's a somewhat lengthy list, but addressing these issues should remove any doubt of the article joining the topic. The article is well on its way to GA and FA, but grammar, structure, accuracy needs to be monitored (as I'm sure you're already aware of). Hope it helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have written this article from scratch and would it article to become a
FA, comments on anything that will help it reach that goal are welcome. Thank you.
Black
ngold29
02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few things that I noticed:
Well, there are some small things that can get you started. Good luck with you drive to FA status. - NatureBoyMD ( talk) 02:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nominate this article for GA status and have some suggestions on how to improve this article, which I've been working on for about a year now.
Thanks,
Andrewlp1991 (
talk)
04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
These are my running comments as I read through the article.
I've got this page on watch, let me know if you need anything else. EagleFalconn ( talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its reached GA status, using
Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Reviews and the general GA review process, and I wanted to have others take a look before moving on towards an FA nomination. The only precedent for a FA college football season is the exceptional
2005 Texas Longhorn football team article. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Other than the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong.
Thanks, Bobak ( talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments-Since the structure and relative comprehensiveness of the article is based on the aforementioned 2005 UT football season FA, I will focus on prose (I'll address a section at a time):
Lead
Before the season
Schedule-No issues :)
Roster
Coaching staff-No issues :)
Game notes
Idaho
*"Trojans Defensive Coordinator Nick Holt had previously been the head coach of the Idaho Vandals between 2004–2005; previous to that he was USC's linebackers coach from 2001 to 2003 under Carroll." previous to that-->before that.
At Nebraska
Other issues:
All my issues have been resolved. I think this article is FAC-ready. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is already listed as a Good Article and has gone through a failed FAC, but since then I have tried to expand the article further and I have improved the lead. In the peer review I would like comments regarding how I could get this article to meet the Featured Article Criteria.
Thanks, Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually a big fan of 30 Rock, but my experience with editing TV-related articles is fairly nonexistent. So consider this review from the standpoint of an outsider. :) As requested, I've reviewed this article as I would for FAC.
I did not get too far into reviewing the prose, but I may do so later if needed. Best of luck, if you have any questions just let me know! María ( habla con migo) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I've sorted all the points. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope these help! Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've sorted all of them. It's much appreciated as i'm looking to submit the article for FA in the next few days. -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to run it through
WP:FL soon, and I'd appreciate some comments first. The last time I went to
WP:FL (with
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Principals and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford), many of the comments were minor MOS points that I think I've managed to avoid this time round. I should be turning the remaining redlinks to blue in the next few days. The unlinked names are people about whom nothing is known, or about whom nothing can really be said to show notability.
Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished a major overhaul. This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and I'm looking for comments and assistance for this article, but tips and comments on my work for my future edits here!
Thanks, ThomasOwens ( talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: You need to decide if you are going to develop this into a full Wikipedia article, or leave it as a brief summary with links. If it is to be a full-scale article, the following require attention:-
I have not looked in detail at the prose, but will do so if you decide you want to develop the article on the above lines. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
After extensive edits to this article, I decided it would be best to get feedback on how to improve the article. I don't think that featured article status is appropriate for a technical article like this, but an outside opinion would be great.
Thanks,
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from RJHall:
I hope this was some help. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear if there are any problems with it that'd make unrealistic its nomination as a Good Article.
Thanks, Skarkkai ( talk) 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would love to have some feedback on this since wanted to nominate it for FA once done. This would also help to improve
Hindu-German Conspiracy to FA standards, so all help will be appreciated. Particularly looking for help with prose, grammar, suggestions at condensing, etc.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like honest feedback, since the topic is still new, but there has been coverage of the group for a while now. The group is just now beginning to influence Philadelphia city planning.
Thanks, - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it discusses an important epoch in the development of literature in the
Kannada language. The article is well referenced but needs a peer review to improve grammar, presentation and style. Please provide constructive feedback which can help this article eventually become a FA.
Thanks, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. It has recently passed GA with the observation that it perhaps had too many images. I've deleted one, and shifted the positions of others. I'd like further comments on choice and positioning of images, also on the prose generally, and any other suggestions for improvement.
Thanks,
Brianboulton (
talk)
16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
FactotEm comments...
General...
Ferdinand Magellan...
Garcia de Nodal expedition...
More tomorrow. -- FactotEm ( talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Robert Falcon Scott...
Lead...
In general, I really like this article. To this layman, who's own Farthest South mark is 65°15’S, its a succinct, accessible, eminently readable skip through man's gradual approach to the south pole. The only point at which I felt something was missing was Borchgrevink's 1900 return to the continent. Please tell me he picked up his shore party that was left there the previous year. The only substantive thing that I think would improve this article would be a map image showing each explorer's farthest south record (and their routes if at all possible).
My review is based on what you have included. You know better than I what, if anything, is missing, but it does not read like there is anything substantial lacking. -- FactotEm ( talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been cleaned up a lot and referenced now. The article might fall into a B article or higher, if not it be good to get feedback to improve it more.
Thanks, Andrewcrawford ( talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recentlybeen translated by
User:Nishkid64 and myself. I would like to hear your comments so this article can get featured.
Thanks, --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback to complete this list in the most acurate way posible. Note: When I sent the list for the 1999 number-one albums to the FL reviewer they asked to choose between the rowspan or the sortable, and I choose the rowspan.
Thanks, Jaespinoza ( talk) 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this as a features article. Any suggestions, comments and contributions are welcome! :)
Thanks,
Jainrajat11 (
talk)
17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If you are serious about trying to get featured status for this article you will need first to attend to the following:-
It might be a good idea to look at other city articles, particularly those like Washington DC which have recently been raised to FA status, to see the general standards of writing, sourcing and referencing that are required in featured articles. You should not be discouraged from attempting to make bring this article to the required standard, but you need to be realistic about what this will involve. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the recent promotion to good article status and on suggestion by the reviewer to pursue featured article status. Hopefully some good input can be provided to further refine and improve the article. Thanks!
Mvjs (
talk)
12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed the article on
Montreal for peer review because I have been working on this article a lot since its last peer review, and I want to know what the article needs to bring it to the next level (either GA, A or FA). It has over 100 sources (about twice as much as before) and evidently needs some more in the locations I've pinpointed. Any sort of commentary is useful in improving the article. In particular with regards to the way its written, information to add and remove, missing sections, layout, tone, etc. I want this to be a great article and with your input I can help to bring it there.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks in advance, MTLskyline ( talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Dtbohrer
This is just a brief review of the major problems. I'll add more later. -- D.B. talk• contribs 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article has been significantly improved from
the version I started working on almost a month ago, but I would like input from more experienced editors before nominating it as a good article. Considering that the article was flagged as reading like an advertisement and being generally NPOV before my overhaul, I would appreciate comments on if/where those violations still exist in addition to any other general advice.
Thanks, Emw2012 ( talk) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RJH comments—Here's a few suggestions that I hope are of some use to you:
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I and other members of WikiProject Minnesota would like to improve this article in preparation for the 2008 Republic National Convention which will draw a great deal of local, national and international press coverage. The will corresponded to people viewing this article more frequently than in the past.
Our overall goal would be to achieve GA or higher.
It is that spirit that improvements are needed—so that we may put the most accurate face on St. Paul (and the surrounding area).
Thanks, Calebrw ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article recently passed GA. I'd like to nominate it for FA, but I'm not sure it is ready yet, and would be grateful for a peer review. The article is extensively footnoted and is kept up to date.…
Thanks, Wehwalt ( talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just wrote this last night, but I believe this is one of my best articles so far, and I'd like some feedback before FAC. Thanks, –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
12:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because FAC reviewers suggest it needs retooling.
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have done extensive updating on it and brought it from Start to B rating. I have followed the WP:MOS and referenced extensively. I would like to know how far away it is from being a GA or FA. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and it was suggested by an editor working on the Wikipedia Ireland Project that I submit it for peer review.
Thanks, Corcs999 ( talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this lists to be as good as possible, and also I want some feedback about them.
Thanks, Jaespinoza ( talk) 06:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I recently got this article up to GA status, now what would need to be done for FA?
Thanks, Me5000 ( talk) 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is a long way off from FA and am a bit surprised it is a GA. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
gulen has driven attention after he voted top thinker in an online poll by the foreign policy magazine. i've listed this article for peer review because the article sounds like a battlefield between the gulen enemies and followers and never becomes stable. the neutral tone is not preferred by the enemies if it does not sound negative enough to satisfy their emotions. and followers wants more in some cases. the community oversee seems to be necessary to end this and stabilize the article. i posted a request on the 'request for comment' page before too, but did not get enough attention from there. i hope you have some time to review the article and provide some useful comments on the talk page.
Thanks,
Philscirel (
talk)
20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I improved this article a lot and I think it has become a really good one, but I still wanted to know if I could do something!
Thanks, Olliyeah ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I repeat anything!
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I desire feedback on how to improve the article. Comments on grammar, layout, clarity, etc., are appreciated. I already understand that the lead needs expanding. I am not truly interested in an automated review.
Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: What is there looks pretty good, but it needs some more work. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to submit it for GAR and would like a fresh set of eyes to look it over before it is submitted. It has gone under substantial revisions since early June and has improved greatly. I'd like it to be looked over mainly for MOS and prose/clarity issues mostly in addition to the standard GA criteria. There is a little bit more content I'd like to add, but as it stands now, it's fairly complete without going into too much detail.
Thanks for any and all input! Yohhans ( talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to FA status in the future. I know it's some rough copy, so help with spelling and grammar is appreciated, but any more fundamental suggestions for improvement I would love to hear as well.
Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Nice and quite interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become a
featured article. It is similar to the
1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, which recently became an FA. Thanks,
D.M.N. (
talk)
13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments - My peer-reviewing services were requested on my talk page, so I've come to offer some pre-FAC advice. Hopefully this won't take as long as the last one.
Hope this helps. The lead should be your primary concern, but overall it's in good shape. I actually think you have an advantage with this as compared to the other article, because this race sounds more exciting, giving you plenty to write about. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is being reviewed as part of a big
Halo (series) media topic being created, and so this article needs to be peer reviewed. Not much has been revealed yet, so take a crack at what's here, make sure it's in good shape; prose, fair use rationales, other. Thanks much!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
03:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs):
Until there's more context and information available, don't expect much. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 20:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the second article in a series, the first being History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942), which is now a FA. I am looking for feedback on the quality of writing, and how well the article flows, especially in comparison to the first. All other comments are welcomed.
Thanks, Reso lute 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, it looks as good as the first in the series. Hopefully, these comments will help improve it further. Let me know if you want any more, otherwise I'll see you at FAC. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the main contribuitor asked for feedback.
Nergaal (
talk)
10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently the
Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month. I am also nominating it for peer review during this process so that we could also get some eyes on it (both individuals familiar with drug-related articles, and others, familiar with the copyeditting process as a whole) as it is improved towards FA or GA status.
Dr. Cash (
talk)
21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it previously failed a featured article review on copy edit grounds. Changes have been made since then which, hopefully, clear these issues, but an independent review would be appreciated.
Thanks, DavidCane ( talk) 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UT
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking about nominating it to be a Featured Article, but I would like to make sure that it is at that point...I don't want it to fail horribly. =) So basically I'm asking for people to read through the article and tell me A) What is wrong with it and B) If it has a chance at
WP:FAC.
Thank you very much for your time! the_ed 17 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a last review process before an attempted FLC nomination. Please, any and all comments are welcome.
Thanks, haha169 ( talk) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't have that much time today, I can't dissect all the prose—I skipped the episode summaries too. Here are the issue that stood out to me.
Sorry for the half review. I hope it still helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
Any other issues here, or can I close up this peer review and put it up for a FL candidacy? NuclearWarfare contact me My work 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a last review process before an attempted FLC nomination. Please, any and all comments are welcome.
Thanks, haha169 ( talk) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PR by Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs)
Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive comments to improve this article, and also so this article is marked as being audited for a future featured topic nomination.
Gary King (
talk)
02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And yeah, that's about it. — Giggy 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are still some problems like page numbers for citations and sentence structuring that are preventing it from moving forward and especially for the sake of the former considering the vast information i have acquired from three main sources - how i can going to get round this, i don't know. The article itself has a good strong introduction and history section plus a wealth of sources and pictures. Overall, a general inspection and tidy up is desperately required here plus some good advice on how to deal with those sources citing page numbers.
Thanks, Kilnburn ( talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Dtbohrer
Here is what I found initially. If you would like more or if there is something you want me look at specifically, just ask and I'll more than happy to oblige.
Intro
History
Governance
Geography
Religion probably could be merged with "Demography"
To take care of the page numbers in the citations, you may want look at using shortened citations. I'm willing help with this, if you need it.
Overall, it shouldn't be to much trouble to get it to GA. The information is there, it just needs to be cleaned up. -- D.B. talk• contribs 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently translated the German page of this article and I am wondering how it might be improved further. I used the FA
Scotland national football team as a model in parts.
Thanks, EnemyOfTheState ( talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a sports editor, but this looks pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Looks well referenced and sources also look generally good. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A massive Halo media topic is being built, and this is one of the articles that needs to be peer reviewed for it to pass. This is an unreleased game, and so please take a look for prose issues, fair use issues, and any gaps of information. Thanks much!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is an unreleased Halo novel that needs to be reviewed for an upcoming Halo Media featured topic. It doesn't have too much content yet, so it should be simple to review, just check for prose, gaps information, and fair use issues. Thanks much!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Cheers. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after re-working the list in format and making it more in line with lists of a similar nature that are Featured Lists such as
List of Birmingham City F.C. statistics and records, I feel the list is close to reaching that standard. I have brought the list to Peer review to iron out any kinks before I go to FLC. Thanks in advance for your comments
NapHit (
talk)
20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope this is useful. -- Jameboy ( talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten most of the article and now I need feedback on how to improve it further. Also, what grade on the assessment scale would you rate it (the article looked like
this before I began working on it and it was rated Start-class back then).
Thanks, TheLeft orium 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! rst20xx here.
- rst20xx ( talk) 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to eventually get this article to GA status. I want to know what I have to do (other than expand the personal life section) to get this article to that point.
Thanks, -- L A X 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
-- S R X 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have done significant work on it recently, and would appreciate any criticism with a view to proposing it as a featured article candidate. I've added as much detail as I can right now, there is one reference that doesn't have page numbers. The gallery I'm unsure of, as well as the table formatting. I'm most interested though to know if any readers come away with a sound knowledge of the subject and its history. I'd also like input on some of the references, are they all suitable for this article, particularly references that go to pages that show primarily images?
Thanks, Parrot of Doom ( talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: In terms of content this looks very good - seems comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Still needs some work to get to FA, so, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my efforts will be successful enough to acquire start class for the article. I know that the article can do with some more pictures, a shorter better written introduction and maybe do with another section - governance (which i have been pending) but on a general view does this stand any chance.
Thanks, Kilnburn ( talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly now qualify as start class, but it has a ways to go before it moves much higher. In particular, here's a look at the lead:
If you'd like some additional feedback, please respond here, and I'll continue my review... MeegsC | Talk 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it up to
GA, and eventually,
FA. Right now it has reference issues and jargon issues (the references I'm going to work on right after I save this page). I'm looking for any problems with the text and any improvements that should be made for this to reach GA. I think it should be noted that I have not done too terribly much to this article, and I wish to stick with from now until FA.
Thanks, Leonard (Bloom) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to FA standards, but I would like feedback. It passed the GA, but without much comments on the prose—I presume this may be where the most errors lay. Thanks,
Arsenikk
(talk)
14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and enjoyable article. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you have questions or comments, please post them here. I am putting a watch on this page. If you find my comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth ( talk) 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a significant amount of information about the actor, and wanted to see if it warranted a good/featured article nomination, and if not, what would be required to make it so. Although I have some experience with other wikis, this is my first time doing this in Wikipedia, so any suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks!
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll do more when I have time, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend fixing these problems, maybe getting another PR from someone else, then you're all set. Good luck Hunter! Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
My goal is to bring this article to FAC in approximately a month's time, but there's no rush, trust me. :) My main concerns aside from the run of the mill prose/MOS issues is comprehensiveness, especially in regards to the last few sections: "Fiction and poetry", etc., and "Legacy". What doesn't make sense, what is missing, what needs clarification? BTW, I am more than willing to do additional research if needed. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks!
María (
habla con
migo)
02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a Good Article, and I would like to make it Featured.
Thanks,
Kodster (
heLLo) (
Me did that)
19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is good, but it needs a lot of polish to get through FAC problem free. Here are some suggestions - it is also a good idea to look at some recent FAs on songs and check that this follows them on MOS issues, and to watch FAC and see what articles are getting dinged for. Here are some specific suggestions:
There's a start for you. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check what is missing to become an FA.
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it contains a very good amount of information and may possibly be listed as a featured list. I want to know what else it needs besides an intro and references. Also, if referencing the entire article with a few general sources is enough - for example,
http://www.etymonline.com/ would be enough?
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This has a lot of infromation, but it is a very long way from FL. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
RJH comments: I hope these are of some use:
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has just become a
WP:Good article. I would like to know what else needs to be done before I take it to
WP:FAC, as I am all out of ideas.
I am also concerned about the length of the plot section. WP:MOSTV says "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots." This is an article about two episodes so the plot has been split into two parts. The word count for Part 1 is 653, and the count for Part 2 is 453, making a total of 1106. If anyone has any suggestions of how to lower the word count, especially for Part 1, while still making it understandable, that'd be great.
Thank you, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps a little. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It's much appreciated! Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to raise it to FA level and was wondering what else was needed.
Thanks,
Serendi
pod
ous
22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Here's a few notes that I hope are of some use:
Thank you. Hope I didn't offend; this was just intended as a constructive critique.— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
:* Please clarify what is meant by "relatively thick torus of space". I probably know what you intended, but the wording may be misleading to some.
Comments from Geometry guy
I agree with the need for a deep copyedit, and will try to contribute myself to this. One other issue which struck me was the Formation section, where there is a brief paragraph on the prevailing view, and extensive discussion of one alternative view. That's not encyclopedic! Geometry guy 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::It could be OR to say then. Maybe "one theory" and "another theory" would be better.
Geometry guy
08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to complete a
WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series, and per suggestions there, I need to have this article PR'd, which shouldn't be too hard, as it is just a stub.
Thanks, MASEM 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Same thing with the On Tour: Decades PR, I don't have that many comments as the article is so short. Here's what stood out to me.
That's it, hope it helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to know how to improve it.
Thanks, Pruddle ( talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former featured article that I would like to see get up to at least good, preferably back to featured, however in the past I have had trouble finding problems, so I'd like some assistance with that before I start working on it.
Thanks, L'Aquatique talk 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I hope these comments helped. If you want a more thorough rundown, contact me at my talk page. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is ready for Good Article consideration.
Thanks, Spy007au ( talk) 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FAC and would appreciate anything that would improve the sourcing, prose or style of the article.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel there are some serious style issues here:
"This is probably an exaggeration"... says who? If references can show that Vasari was probably exaggerating, then it means that undue weight is being put on a statement which is regarded as being inaccurate. If the claim of exaggeration is someone's original research then it must be removed.According to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated with Verrocchio on his Baptism of Christ, painting the young angel holding Jesus’ robe in a manner that was so far superior to his master's that Verrocchio put down his brush and never painted again.hello earthlings.[9] This is probably an exaggeration.
Any assistance in reducing the redundancy and making the text sharper and more concise would be appreciated.
Thanks, Papa November ( talk) 13:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article and have seen it improved a lot since I have started it. Grammar & spelling mistakes have been fixed and the article is not too long and not too short. I am aware that it is quite impossible for a school article to achieve FA status, but I plan to bring this article to GA, or at least B. I want to know what are the things I have left out, and what can be done to improve this article, before I nominate it for GA.
Thanks, Kristalyamaki ( talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for the article:
If you have any questions on this review, or need more feedback on the article, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Five Years 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review just before FAC to verify what MOS and c/e issues might exist, and weather the language used is accessible enough for the general audience.
Nergaal (
talk)
01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sjc196 comments:
I hope that's helpful! If you need me to clarify any of the points I've made, just let me know via my talk page. Sjc196 ( talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not ready for FAC yet per above and per my comments at Talk:Yttrium#FAC. Stone also wants to put some finishing touches first as well. -- mav ( talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it would need to be a part of a planned featured topic on
Dwarf planets. So I would need to bring this article to GA-class. What is it missing?
Thanks,
Nergaal (
talk)
20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik ( talk) 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
MIT just underwent a good-article review
here with GA-status kept. A major overhaul of organization and content was done in connection with the GA/R and I would appreciate some more eyes on it before listing for FAC in the near future.
Thanks,
Madcoverboy (
talk)
21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it a Featured List. Please respond with any suggestions for the list concerning ease of use/understanding, clarity, format, etc.
Thanks, NatureBoyMD ( talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll do this like a straight FL review.
I am now very impressed with this list. I really like the way it's laid out; the last concern I have is the affiliations being merged into the main tables. If you'd like me to do it (I usually set them up colored and abbreviated), I could take care of that. Let me know here or on my talk page. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put in a lot of work using
this guideline here. It is still a work in progress, but I'd like you guys to review it as a whole and see how it can be improved.
Thanks, Starstriker7( Say hi or see my works) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my comments. This is a good start, but needs some work to get to GA and FA.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in the midst of major POV editing and very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article especially where POV and references are concerned.
Thanks, Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No. You've listed it because you have repeatedly lost arguments in the talk page and are now seeking other ways to have your views supported. There is an ongoing "debate" in the talk page, but, since there has been no substantive editing to the article for months, how can you possibly say it is "in the midst major" (or any) "POV editing"? Emeraude ( talk) 10:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please look at the Good article review of this article which recommends a peer review for this article.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Have done. As I recall, it was you who nominated the article for "good article" review as well, for no reason I can discern other than your continued campaign to have your views prevail over the majority of serious contributors to the article and its talk page. You knew it was not capable of achieving good article status, so one can only wonder at your motives. Emeraude ( talk) 10:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments I am archiving this per
Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy: Peer review is not resolving ongoing edit wars / content disputes - please use the talk page.
I looked at just the lead and saw several problems that need to be fixed (I did not read past the lead)
Sorry and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
LucyMarie seems not to differentiate between POV on the Talkpage and in the substantive article. There has been an incredible amount of POV and ad hominem attacks in Talk page - most of which has been directed against me. Registered users have largely kept within the parameters of normal debate, but most of the abuse and on occasion threats -including the prediction that I will be tried for treason when the BNP take power- have come from unregistered and anonymous users, although at least one of these appears to have the same IP number as User EBleisher. On one occasion this spilled over into a message being left on my User Talk page, which I resent. I hope now that this has been archived we can leave it behind and concentrate on the substantive article. Edits to this are restricted to registered users and this obviously disadvantages the pack of unregistered users who vociferously support the BNP. That they wish to remain anonymous and unregistered is their choice,although the content and style of their contributions on the Talk page would suggest they would have little to offer.
The POV criticisms of the article are rarely if ever specific. There seems to be little disputation of facts as such, but possibly the selection of those facts. I can tell you now that no NPOV treatment of the BNP is going to make them appear in the flattering light they would like.--
Streona (
talk)
08:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is poorly written and does though contain massive amounts of POV for example "cherry picking" three policies which are highly controversial and only portray the BNP in a negative light, is highly POV. A peer review was suggested after a failed GA review and POV and MOS were the basis for which it was requested.---- Lucy-marie ( talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot understand why those more favourably disposed towards the BNP do not add to the list of policies and then an allegedly more balanced view could be seen. I agree with the BNP stance on whaling and supporting Greenpeace - though I doubt that Greenpeace do- and have added this in. However we cannot ignore the defining policies of the BNP. If they are unpalatable they need not have them - nobody is forcing them. If their councillors have achieved anything notable then add this. I have found various claims by them regarding footpaths and street furniture, but this is not notable enough to add. As to it being poorly written- and I wrote very little of it- can we be more precise?-- Streona ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK-- Streona ( talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it a Featured List. There is a
June 2006 FLC but I think it is not actual anymore. Suggestions?
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 07:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This has a very long way to go to get to FL in my opinion. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article and List of recurring characters in The Simpsons could be merged. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is a mess, has been poorly written (with far too many lengthy direct quotes) and suffers from a lack of balance. I am attempting to edit it to improve it, but it badly needs fresh eyes and outside opinions on how best to improve it so it can reach Good Article status.
Thanks, Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I see you've been having a rough time with edit wars. You have my sympathy. Alas, you have already guessed at least part of what I have to say. Yes, the article needs a re-write, and, yes, it has way too many long quotes. I read quite a lot of the talk page before reading the article, and I see that instability has prevented progress for many months. This is too bad, because it's virtually impossible to write the final lead and to polish the prose while great chunks of material are being added and subtracted. I can't tell for sure that the article is stable yet, but I'll assume so. Here are some suggestions for starters:
I hope you find these few suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog, which is where I found this one. Finetooth ( talk) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it's better than
wp:ga standards but could use some comments and minor cleanup. someone (preferably sb who has worked on it) shld nominate it for
wp:fac eventually
Thanks, Solenodon ( talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I respectfully disagree that this is already at GA class. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks, i want to see if its ready for FL. Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is very close to receiving GA status. When I found it it was a Start/Mid article, but is now covered in references, and has been significantly expanded. There are now pictures and an expanded infobox. Two editors have gone through copyediting. There are not many school articles that are at the GA level, and I think this one has a chance to be the next one. I am especially keen to make sure our referencing is covered, and that the style meets the requirements for a high level article.
Many Thanks for your time and critique, LonelyBeacon ( talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I'm no expert on image licensing, but I'm focused today on trying to learn more about it. I see licensing problems with two of your images.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tidyed up after being tagged for no references just want to know what else cna be done ot improve it, if it ok to have it reviewed for B class
Thanks, Andrewcrawford ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. *The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive a broad perspective on how it can be improved. Thanks.
Sunderland06 (
talk)
22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite a lot of spelling/grammar issues jump out upon first reading e.g.
Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's about it NapHit ( talk) 13:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive suggestions on how to improve this article. Thanks!
Gary King (
talk)
00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not much that can be said at the point... — Giggy 02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve the article. Thanks,
Gary King (
talk)
22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, generally seems a good coverage of what's known so far.
But yeah, generally looks good... I didn't find much! Good work. — Giggy 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Yohhans ( talk) - Overall things look really good. I just have a few things (mostly prose issues) I'd like to comment on.
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.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, at this point in time, the article is progressing well, but could really do with some comments by neutral editors who have a tad more "distance" from the work than we do, and thus can better evaluate any strengths or weaknesses. I'm hoping that it is getting close to featured quality now, and any advice to help get it closer would be greatly appreciated. :)
Thanks, Bilby ( talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from JamieS93
I know this might not be all that thorough, and I'm not experienced with peer reviews, but here's what I noticed when looking through the article:
So that's what I noticed when taking a look at the article. The prose seems to be decent, I don't know about FA-quality, however, didn't take a close enough look at it (the article would probably need a good copyedit reviewing anyway, to reach that higher standard). This type of article does seem like it would be hard to bring together as a well-organized piece, not a messy random pot of information; you and your project seem to have done a nice job with that, though. I hope this helps! Jamie ☆ S93 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief comment from Ruhrfisch I agree with Jamie93's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was nominated for peer review, and
subsequently FAC, where it failed for what I thought was mostly to do with prose and langlit. It was subsequently promoted to GA, but some work has been done subsequently and I would appreciate and welcome some more eyes and opinions before renominate it to FAC again.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it up to FA standard, however I just cannot make it any simpler, therefore a good copyedit is perhaps in order. I've been waiting for months for a copyedit and have yet to find a willing volunteer.
Thanks, Harlsbottom ( talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
As always, thanks for the comments! Ruhrfisch, I take your point about ILL, however I'm quite simply too busy to borrow books, and I'm in enough do-do with the British Library lending service as it is. At the moment I'm in the States for six weeks so borrowing is somewhat impractical. At any rate, it just so happens I've found a raft of articles and correspondence written by the subject which I was perusing just as I saw this pop up on my watchlist. More work to be done! Regards, -- Harlsbottom ( talk | library) 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because although it needs better sourcing for such things as the various Emmy nominations for the TV appearances, I think it has many if not most of the requirements for Featured List status. Be brutal, tell me what needs to happen to make this an
FL.
Thanks, Otto4711 ( talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Glad this is helpful - not sure what else to say, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have spent a tremendous amount of time creating a neutral article (often difficult with schools) that is well referenced and is thorough, leaving nothing wanting. I believe it is time to face a broader range of editors to see what they thing. I hope that you can give honest feedback, and feel free to improve the article yourself! This is my first time taking an article anywhere, so I hope I haven't messed this up!:-D
Many thanks guys,
rocketman89 (
talk)
23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. There is a lot of information in the article, but there are some gaps and issues of organization. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want suggestions on how to improve the prose; I feel this is the best place for it, as the LOCE backlog is huge.
Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you'd like additional comments, please respond here! MeegsC | Talk 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You really should answer those questions in the article, not here! If I had those questions, so will many other readers... MeegsC | Talk 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to find out how it looks after a major overhaul, and how it can be further improved toward B class status.
Thanks,
Tadakuni (
talk)
22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because The Rambling Man suggested it.
Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous 24 GO LAKERS! 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, so Maclean says that he has a source for Harry Warner's managing 12 games. That we can use, and if I can see the source, I will make a stub for him as well so that the list is not incomplete. The last thing I think we need to do in terms of the actual list is find out why Cookie Rojas managed three games in 2001.
On a personal note, I'd like to thank the author for being patient with us as reviewers. I know from experience what a grueling process FLC can be; it's one of the reasons I don't even begin to touch FAs. I think that if Maclean, K. Annoyomous24, myself, and other reviewers work together, we can finish this up and get this list to FL. I would suggest that since it's been through two failed noms in two weeks, we should wait about a month and make sure it's perfectly clean and shipshape before putting forth another nomination. If all goes as planned, I'll gladly come on as a co-nom, if it meets our standards. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I merged a more detailed introduction from my sandbox into the article. [1] Is this ok? -- maclean 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an ongoing and at the same quite controversial topic. This make the process to improve this article to the
WP:GA level quite challenging. I would like to get guidelines what additionally has to do be done before the
WP:GAN.
Thanks, Beagel ( talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to get this article to GA, and hopefully FA. Any concerns, I will address.
Thanks, S R X 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks for all and any comments. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is already very good, and I don't think it will be a huge push to get it to FA status. I made some punctuation tweaks as I was reading and noted some other items below. I know red links are allowed, but they are always ugly to me, especially in the lead. Any chance of writing stubs for Euston and maybe Willie Mathews?
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… six months ago it failed a
WP:FLC. At that time, only one Awards list was Featured. A few more have been promoted since then, and I'd like to know whether the comments at the FLC still stand, or if my fellow Wikipedians' thoughts are now different.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards won by Degrassi/archive1 is the location of the FLC.
Also, might it be better to split the article up for the different series in the franchise, or as suggested at the FLC, group them by year, or in one big table?
Thanks, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 05:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its a good article that the two of us are trying to get to FAC. We are looking for more sufficient information before then, and it'll be a big bonus if we can get all problems solved before FAC, so that goes smoothly. Thanks!
Thanks, Mitch32(
UP)
19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) &
Juliancolton (via IRC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs):
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done quite a bit of work on improving this article on one of the most influential men in the history of
association football. Surprisingly little actually seems to be recorded about him, but I'm hoping there's just enough here to get the article to
GA status. Please let me know what more I might need to do...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. We're peer-reviewing again, but this time we'd like approval to promote the article to Class A in preparation for going to WP:FAC. The standards for Class A can be found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment along with a detailed rubric. We believe we have satisfactorially met the requirements of the previous peer review (see below) and are pretty sure we're ready. EagleFalconn ( talk) 20:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Howdy,
I'm looking to get this article up to snuff. Its been pretty idle ever since my original edits on it in 2005(!!!). Its currently listed Class-B in Wikiproject:Chemistry (which seems to be pretty idle to me...) so I'm coming here for peer review.
Not done I can tell you right now that one thing none of you are going to like is the sourcing on the article.
Not doneWhile the article needs to be sourced more thoroughly, before I do that I feel like the article has organizational issues. I just redid the beginning, and I feel like its decently strong, but the article delves into other issues later in the article and I'm not sure about relevance.
I'd primarily like comments regarding requests for additional material, pedagogical issues, flow of English, material that could be reorganized, moved to another part of the article, moved to another article, or removed.
Thanks, EagleFalconn ( talk) 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article about a small urban creek for peer review because I've done most of the work on it with relatively little feedback. I'd like someone interested in geography to take a look to make sure that I haven't omitted anything essential and that the article reads well and makes sense throughout. I've worked extensively on two other small creeks,
Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and
Balch Creek in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, and my plan is to take these as far as I can and to create comprehensive articles about the
Columbia Slough and
Tryon Creek as well. These four creeks and a slough plus the
Willamette River and the
Columbia River are the main water bodies in the city of Portland. My intent is to improve or to encourage improvement on these five small ones, to take each through PR, GA, and on to FAC if possible.
Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is already FA, and Balch Creek is a current GA nominee. Fanno has come about as far as I can take it without the help of additional sharp-eyed editors.
Thanks, Finetooth ( talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Comments from Wackymacs ( talk · contribs)
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently become a Good Article and I would like to see what changes are needed for it to reach FA status. For comparison, please see
Eris (dwarf planet), a featured article on a similar body.
Thanks,
Serendi
pod
ous
22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Comment I did some quick copyediting, and two suggestions: move "Orbit" before "Physical characteristics"... that's the way it is at Eris. I recommend keeping this consistent between articles. Also, I'd recommend moving "Classification" to right after "Discovery"; that's where it is at Eris, and it seems pretty logical to keep this information near the beginning. -- Rmrfstar ( talk) 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Cm:
Archive PR and start a FAC? Nergaal ( talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its Samuel Johnson, and, well, he needed a lot of work, and I just came on to add citations. I'm sure there are others with important skills that can contribute or recommend the much needed work to actually make this a decent page.
Thanks, Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it towards FAC. It's recently had one peer review, and I've made some slight changes, but hoped to get some more input, particularly any suggestions about whether the lead is long enough or what changes may be appropriate to add.
Thanks, Peanut4 ( talk) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll come back and look at the post-war years later...... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope all of the above helps!!!! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to know if the article requires additional work before nominating it as a GAC. If not, I'm looking for constructive criticism of any kind. The biggest problem has been finding actual sources, and as it turns out, most of them can probably only be found in BYU libraries and I don't have access. I've asked for help in at least three instances from the LDS project and their members but I haven't had much of a response. Thanks, Viriditas ( talk) 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I reread it and think it would help to explain the difference between a LDS temple (which there are few of) and a LDS "church" (which there are many of). I also would make sure the references all give as much info as consistently as possible - place of publication for books for example. Otherwise nothing comes to mind, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
A temple is a building dedicated to be a house of God and is reserved for special forms of worship. A temple differs from a church meetinghouse, which is used for weekly worship services.
Redtigerxyz's Comments:
Yes, i agree the links i provided may not be RS, be still for an article to be complete other sources except the internet like newspaper articles, books can be refered. Rick Satterfield one does mention murals. All the best imporving the article. Redtigerxyz ( talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that other than the gaps in the episode guide it's close to GA class. General comments are welcome as always but specifically, is not having an entry for each episode under the "topics" column going to be a deal-killer for ever reaching GA?
Thanks, Otto4711 ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a main operating system, and quality info should be given as to it (besides,
Mac OS X is GA, and this isn't?!) :-)
Thanks, Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs) - Put simply, this needs tons of work before its even GA standard.
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am the main contributor to the article and would like a critical, rigorous PR to help prep for FAC.
Thanks, Eustress ( talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review for editing pursuant to Wiki MOS and appropriate criteria for listed project inclusions.
Thanks, E. Lighthart ( talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I will say some of the same things here I said at Wikipedia:Peer review/L'Opéra of the Palace of Versailles/archive1 Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article up to
Good Article status. A little work has been done already, but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks,
Cinemaniac (
talk •
contribs •
critique)
01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Who doesn't love Bugs? This is a great article to want to bring to GA, so I definitely applaud your effort. Some ideas/suggestions:
I hope this helped! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via my talk page. María ( habla con migo) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, the comments from others will helpfully help for the improvement of the article.
Thanks,
Philscirel (
talk)
18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've said before, it's too early for this. WP:Peer review is for stable articles, and this is not the case here. The right venue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You are new to WP and I suggest you stick around and get some edits under your belt first. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
(AA 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC))
Our problem is to maintain NPOV and Zaman is the worst source to use as reference, since it's Gulen unoffical newspaper. In the entire history of Zaman, there is not even a single sentence published slighly critizising Gulen. Besides this article is about Gulen, not Ergenekon. There is no connection with Ergenkon and Gulen. You can not label all other newspapers under the influence. If there is a newspaper under influence, it's Zaman itself. By the way Zaman is not the only one publishing english, there is Turkish Daily News and Hurriyet is among many others. (Just a correction, Zaman is the most distributed newspaper in Turkey, not the most-selling, since it's widely distributed freely, even I receive free copies left to my apartment.) (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
This article has not a shred of neutrality and this is the third time in one month that Philscirel ( talk · contribs) has asked for PR, when the article is nowhere near stability. Maybe he should find something else to do. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
i reverted your edits. the article is worked for weeks and word by word. you deleted 40 links from the article. NPOV is not deletion of the well-documented information. please discuss first. Philscirel ( talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This article has serious problems with NPOV. I think -besides deleting 40 links-, the any references to Gulen organizations should also be removed. Clerance should start from the one third of the references pointing Zaman, other one third is pointing to Gulen's own home page, so in entire wikipedia history, NPOV never been damaged so much (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently created the article and have greatly expanded it since it's original draft. I was wondering what more I should do to possibly make a push for Featured List. :) Thanks,
Ɔrassic (
talk)
21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: My initial impression is that the list itself looks pretty good, but at present is let down by rather poor lead and History sections. If you look at other football manager lists on WP:FL you will see that some don’t have a History section, merely a short lead followed by the list. Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Oxford United F.C. managers are examples of this. On the other hand, the managerial lists for both Manchester clubs have History sections. It is for you to decide what strategy to follow. There are many problems with the History section as it stands, and if you decide to keep it the question you should ask yourself is: what information are you giving in the section that is not in the table already?
Please note that above are by no means the only prose faults in the History section which, if it is to be retained, ought to have a complete rewrite.
In view of the multiple prose problems, I personally think you would be wise to take the lead only option. Take a look at some of the manager lists where this has been done, to give you some ideas. I hope you have found this review helpful; if you would like me to look at it again after you have responded, leave a message. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its topic is extremely important, yet the article's treatment is like a school essay and random gathering of quotations by scholars, not a proper encyclopedia article. It would benefit from review by multiple, experienced editors.
Thanks,
ZimZalaBim
talk
04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Sillyfolkboy
If these problems are significantly dealt with I will post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what can be done to improve it further, in terms of style, and other such other factors. This is all the information I was able to get about the subject, and probably all there is at this moment. The article is comprehensive anough for an FA, but even so, I don't feel like it is suitable for such a label. So besides possible improvements, i would also like to know if this article is A-Class.
Thanks,
diego_pmc (
talk)
20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I liked reading about the 5 different stories that were inside the book below the preface. The only things I found wrong with the article was reference #10, that wasn't really a reference, and ref. #11, youtube videos aren't really that reliable for references, you should try to find a different reference. Over all, if you fix those problems, the article could be an A class one.thinkjjgyuitgbn bmv m,nklnmdeded Thanks! (i hope i pass) ~ California Girl 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Although I've read some of the Harry Potter books or seen the movies, I did not know about these stories until reading this article. I am a quasi-outsider with a few suggestions for improvement.
If you have questions or want more comments, please say so here. I have added the page to my watchlist. If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth ( talk) 02:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
So, the main weak point of the article might be that it primarily comes from one book—as mentioned in the article, Masuda's been glossed over in English language Japanese film scholarship and criticism—but I think it manages okay. Also, haven't found a reference for the Kinema Junpo readers choice award yet. Anyway, I'm looking for any glaring errors or omissions and maybe some opinions on whether this has GA or FA potential. Thanks very much,
Doctor Sunshine
talk
20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just passed the GA process. Need suggestions for improvements to reach FA status.
Thanks, Redtigerxyz ( talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Thanks for the review. Will contact you when i am done with referencing issues. Reply to Comments:
Redtigerxyz ( talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have requested this article to be peer reviewed because I believe this article can be improved to an almost featured status. The article's few
FAC responses cited instability for opposing it's candidacy, something that could be contested if this article is improved. I am looking for general feedback, but mostly feedback on where this article need more/less detail, and how the sections could be restructured so this can become a more balanced article.
Cheers. -- Reaper X 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs serious ref work Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (I agree with Ealdgyth's comments on the references - more are needed in many places in the article too, such as the first paragraph of the Timeline section). If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been around 2 years since promotion to FA. I was thinking of putting it through a FA review but then I thought a peer review might be a better first step. I was wondering whether any areas need expansion due to changes in technology,treatment and knowledge in this time. I know some areas are lacking citation and I'll work on that ASAP. Just any suggestiongs in general would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ziphon (
ALLears)
12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Done I've tried to explain it better.
Ziphon (
ALLears)
09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As this was a FA, I jumped right into a detailed review. A quater of the way through I nearly abandoned this as I would not normally put so much time into an article put up for review with such obvious flaws not yet fixed. This needs a lot of work and I hope you really mean to address the issues. Some general issues: Sometimes things are written as if the article is "AsthmaCoincidenceinternallyincomprehensiblediagnosingreversibleasthmaavoidanceorganizationpreventativerepetitive attack"excessive rather than "AriskAsthmaathleticscomprehensivequarterAsthmaAsthmasmatha"; make an effort to clarify that you mean "during an attack" or similar. Often the article focuses rather narrowly on children, more generalized or specifically adult info is much needed. {{ Fact}} tags need to be taken care of.-- BirgitteSB 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to FAC shortly, and am looking for help in making sure the prose flow is good, that it is not wordy and verbose, and that it makes sense to a non-horseperson. Also, suggestions on exactly where to LIST the article would be nice.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. Thanks for all of your work checking refs, Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Second look
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this list to be as acurate as possible and because I hope this list became a Featured List on Wikipedia.
Thanks, Jaespinoza ( talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from JamieS93 – Not a full review, just a couple of comments:
Hope that little bit helps! :) Jamie ☆ S93 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after seeing this article survive AfD, I'd really like to work on bringing it up to
Good Article status. A little work has been done already (mostly on the naming), but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks. —
Cinemaniac (
talk •
contribs •
critique)
16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently undergone an overhaul and I want to see what could be improved to get it to Featured List status. ~
Ameliorate
U
T
C @
08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.
Thanks, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a LONG article, but necessary to be comprehensive. I am looking for input in the following issues:
I would like to take this article to FA. Thank you for reading it. Moni3 ( talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is now looking fairly comprehensive, and a while back I think I trimmed excessive self-promotion. I'm still a bit worried that it sounds self-promotional, but as a listener of the show I'm having a hard time looking at it objectively. I think it's time that some fresh eyes look at it. Does this article have a neutrality problem, and if so, what specific parts of it would need to be modified, and how? Thanks! --
Beland (
talk)
15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Good Article, and ultimately perhaps higher, status, but I've been the primary contributor for some time, so I'm not sure of where to seek out improvement.
Thanks, matt91486 ( talk) 17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to FAC at some point, and would appreciate help with jargon, and prose.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is the current
Shakespeare project collaboration for FA. We need someone to go through it with a fine comb in preparation for FAC.
Thanks, Wrad ( talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is a B-class article that appears to have potential. While it may have some rough edges, with a bit of work this article could make it to GA status. It is currently a Good Article Nominee, and I am looking for feedback from other editors as to what they think of it. Any suggestions of any sorts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
J.T Pearson (
talk)
13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I bring the eyes of an outsider to this article, and I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you have questions or would like more comments, please ask. I hope these comments are helpful. Please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth ( talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA and it needs a good going-over by some fresh eyes. One specific concern is that it is fairly heavily dependent on the Gorman book.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is a generally well-written article about an interesting person. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article from the Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items, which is where I found this one. If you have questions, please ask. Finetooth ( talk) 04:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been up for a "featured article" nomination several times and has been denied. I have extensive knowledge of this movie and its production and I would like to help this article achieve its goal of a "featured article".
I have been looking over the Talk page and I noticed many submissions and clean-up has been done since this article was last nominated.
What I really want is more input from other editors as to how we can improve this article. I believe it really stands out, but Im sure it could use some minor work to top it off.
Let us know what you think guys.
Thanks,
DrNegative (
talk)
07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem on the copyedit—I'm just finishing up a couple other projects. I should be able to get started right away, but you probably won't see any edits until tomorrow. Today will just be analysis and note-taking. I look forward to seeing The Lion King pass its FA review. -- AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
That's enough to work with for now.
If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)That's it. I hope these suggestions were helpful. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached a stage where if other modifications are made to the article it will begin to ruin what appears to be a strong and quality article.
Thanks, Mcwesty ( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)\
Ruhrfisch comments: I am reallly not sure I understand the comment above - this is a good start, but it is not a Good Article and nowhere near WP:FA yet. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (and hopefully not ruin). If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I had a feeling the references where going to be an outstanding problem. I'll try and make the neccessary changes when I can find the time.
What I meant in my commment is that people are continuing to make edits to the article, and if that continues as it has been the article could very easily be ruined from "over editing".
Thanks, Mcwesty ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg
Jones
II
23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
That's a start - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to bring the article up to a Good Article status.
Thanks, KelleyCook ( talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and topic. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some comments to improve it. Also, I believe it could become a Featured List.
Thanks, Saudi 9999 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I do not think this article meets the crteria to be considered a list, so it can not become a Featured List. I think it needs a lot of work to get to Featured Article, but that seems the correct goal to me.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
NapHit comments
That's all for now NapHit ( talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Oldelpaso ( talk) 09:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently helped take it to
GA status, and would like some fresh, experienced eyes to give some feedback as to where it can be improved to help it on it's way to
FA (and to point out just how shoddy my prose is!). I am wondering whether the lead is ok, and whether I should separate the international career segments more from the club career section as a lot is covered in its own section. I also feel the Honours section is a bit of a mess, and any suggestions about improving it would be appreciated!
I would like to note that the absence of photos is a known issue, and we are working on it, but there aren't any currently available.
Thanks, - Toon 05 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was just demoted from featured list, and since then, the article has changed drastically. In fact, it is practically a whole different article. Any comments welcome. Thanks, —
Parent5446
☯ (
message
email)
22:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Haha169
Ah...good. I was just about to start a peer review session. I was also just scanning the FL criteria, and I also think it meets pretty much everything listed there. I would, however, like to see a couple cites in the lead, especially the end of paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 refs seem to be listed in "General".
Good job. I really liked the coloring syntax improvements. -- haha169 ( talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a featured list and would like an outside opinion or two before I take it to FLC. The lead is based on
Boston Red Sox seasons and the table is modeled after
St. Louis Cardinals seasons (both of which are featured), with some changes here and there. This is my first attempt to get a page featured, so help is appreciated.
Thanks, Giants2008 ( 17-14) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Filing a more proper PR request after learning that failed FACs may only file PR requests at least two weeks after such, I hope to prepare this article once again for FA, or even GA, status in preparation for the Tinuom Festival in Cabatuan on September 10, the municipality where the airport is situated. After taking into account many comments from a PR and an FAC, I hope to be able to receive more comments in order to better improve the article. Thanks! --
Sky Harbor (
talk)
12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get some feedback with a view to improving the article. Perhaps it'll go over to FLC at some stage. I'm away from home right now, but I'll be checking back regularly. Thanks. 86.44.xx.xx. or in this case...
212.2.165.61 (
talk)
20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick comments from ~
Eóin (
talk)
Got it started for you. ~ Eóin ( talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a seminal topic in neuroscience today. Articles appear almost daily in HHMI, ScienceDaily, and EurekAlert about Neuroplasticity and a search in any library database brings up scores of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. The most important work on this subject has been done within the past 10 years. In its present state, the article is rather sketchy, and as one reader observed on the discussion page, it "lacks soul." I have made some minor efforts at revision within the past two days. I have been working on a research paper for an undergraduate class, and therefore have done a great deal of reading on current findings in the field. My progress has been somewhat impeded by the fact that everything is written either for the rank lay person (completely unschooled in the sciences) or for fellow neuroscientists. A comprehensive article on Neuroplasticity would be a great boon to the public on every level. Just think: The brain can rewire itself...! This has been extensively documented and is something that everyone needs to know about.
Another reason for my request: Synaptogenesis, one form of Neuroplasticity, has earned a deserved HIGH ranking in importance, although Neuroplasticity is the more inclusive topic.
Thanks,
FrancineEisner (
talk)
18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs):
— Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, Wackymacs, I left a comment on your talk page, but on reconsideration I think you've given me a good deal of info that will assist my improving the article. I will put in a "History" section; that was my instinct in my own (unpublished) essay done for an undergraduate course.
I realize that I'll need to cite the original articles; I'll be able to access them from my university's library database, but I wanted to make a "quick fix" and the use of the ScienceDaily web site (actually press releases for the original articles) was what I was able to come up with "on the fly."
What I intend to do is to produce a new page which omits terminology specific to statistics and neuroscience as much as is humanly possible. Please feel free to offer comments as you wish.
Best, FrancineEisner ( talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - IMO your comments are right on target. I also appreciate your offer. So far, my university library has served me well, except for a few references which have abstracts on the ScienceDirect database but lack available full-text articles (!?) Perhaps they are available somewhere else. I've also been pondering a method of reconciling how labile the topic is. There could be one section (designed to be constantly updated) listing the most current findings, especially on a molecular and cellular level. The rest of the article could remain quite stable, except of course for the edits inevitable in Wikiland,lol. FrancineEisner ( talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because our group is expending this article as a school project, and our grades depend on the achieving a “good article” status. Any help is welcomed and appreciated.
-- Thanks, Group I —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vucko84 (
talk •
contribs)
Comments from Lazulilasher Hey there. As noted above, good job overall. The article does a decent job of introducing the topic, however more information will be required to pass GA.
Ok, I hope this helps get you to GA. Best of luck with your schooling and I hope you stick around Wikipedia even after you complete your course.
Feel free to approach me with any concerns on my talk page. Regards, Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after rewriting it and getting it to GA, I'd like some feedback before an FAC. Thanks,
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for ways to improve the article further as it proceeds along in quality status. No rush, but interested in input from some fresh eyes. Thanks,
Cirt (
talk)
21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The scientology story is very interesting, but the article needs work both in prose and analysis.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to see if its ready for a FL nomination. --
Be Black Hole Sun (
talk)
11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: Wouldn't it be better to ask for the review when the current "major revamp", as indicated by the banner, is completed? Brianboulton ( talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram: Ditto to question above.
Copyediting of the first paragraph would help. It currently reads "... of the Roman Empire, until the final demise of the Western Empire in 476 or to the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I in 565." I think "AND" would work better than "OR". And why not give a "from" date, it would be more descriptive. Essentially construct as "this is a list from ___ to ___ in the west and ___ in the east." Done
Also, the intro does not conform to the guidelines of
wp:LEDE. It should provide an overview of the entire article, which in fact consists of several sections and lists, that should all be mentioned in the lead. The 2nd or 3rd paragraph is providing a "Note" about who is NOT in the list; the lead should be describing what the list is, in positive terms. The note belongs somewhere later.
Hope this helps. Done
doncram (
talk)
01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment by Sillyfolkboy:
Try engaging with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome to get the article looked over by someone with more knowledge of the subject. I'm not oblivious to the history of Rome but with my current understanding I can't really comment on the content of the list.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: I just read about previous concerns regarding the quality of the articles you have brought to FLC. I seriously recommend a second peer review following an improvement to the lead and prose (amongst other things). Be sure that you yourself are very familiar and informed about the subject matter before you make improvements on the article and take it to FLC. If this topic is not your forte then consider working on something else that is. Kind regards. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it's been nearly 16 months since the last peer review, which took place March 2007. Now that the Olympics are coming up, I'd like to hear some improvement suggestions so that I can nominate this article to at least GA status (maybe FA is a possiblility if we work hard enough!)
Thanks, Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The order of sections could use an overhaul, and some sections could be combined with others. While there's no real guideline for international cities, it might help to review the guidelines for US cities and UK cities.
I would recommend focusing on improving prose within main sections, and reducing the number of 2nd and 3rd level subsection headers. Integrate information better into the main topics.
The 'education' section is really just a big list of schools, and many of them are red links. This section should talk about the overall education programs in the city, from the primary schools on up to higher education. How many students are in the city? How many teachers? How are schools ranked? A list of schools can be linked to from this article, but there isn't much value in having that list in this article itself.
The 'architecture' section seems to have very little content and a big gallery. I'd recommend nuking the gallery and focusing more on the content. Maybe move the section to 'geography' and call it cityscape to integrate it in with a discussion of neighborhoods. How does architecture vary in the different parts of the city, for example? Speaking of which, the 'neighborhoods' section is really just a bulleted list, and a collection of tables. This should be converted to prose. The tables themselves offer little value. Move the 'city layout' main section into the 'geography' section.
Change 'politics' to 'government and politics'. There's two important topics that need to be discussed here: local city government and the national capital and government. While I still think that individual subsections should be discouraged, a separate subsection for the national government would be acceptable here.
The 'sports' section needs a bit of work. Let's try and nuke that bulleted list and discuss something abuot sports. The mention of the 2008 summer olympics seems to go straight from that, to what appears to be an advertising promotion for Mike Davis' book Planet of Slums, which doesn't seem appropriate. I'm sure we can find out more about this topic for the article. Don't forget to discuss other sports that take place in the city at other times during the year. The olympics is pretty much a single event.
Try to keep 'see also' items on topic. What in the heck does Yanjing Beer have to do with the city, other than the fact that it's probably brewed here. It seems a bit like an advertising promotion to me?
Those are the big issues as I see them. It's good to see some interest with this article right now, though I wish people started a bit earlier. Not sure if we'll get FA before the olympics or not; GA, maybe? Though there are some at WP:GAN that like to stress the importance of the 'stability' criterion of WP:WIAGA, so the GA review may have to wait until the olympics are over,... Dr. Cash ( talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is extremely detailed and accurate. The content in the article is extremely relevent and should be applauded.
Thanks,
Cadan ap Tomos (
talk)
14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it needs a lot more work before it can be applauded with GA or FA status, but it is a good start. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.
Thanks, Jclemens ( talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article does not have good structure and the last review was 1.5 years ago. General review needed.
Thanks, Kozuch ( talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I note the editor nominating this for peer review appears to have made fewer than 10 edits to the article. Do you plan to follow through on the suggestions of this peer review? Hopefully so. Anyway, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…this article has
failed the FAC just because it suffers from style of referencing (the citation.....cite xxx template). Can an experienced reviewer who has a good knowledge of FAC's just comment on how to fix these very minor issues and some overlinking if its there. There are no prose or unreliabilty issues. So that need not be reviewed.
Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk) 17:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I'll be able to list the article at PR since I'm renominating the article at FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet ( talk) 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Featured Article, and are looking for some feedback before it is submitted to
WP:FAC. It follows a format and style very similar to that of both
Black Moshannon State Park and
Worlds End State Park which are featured articles that we have worked on.
Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher ( talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dtbohrer
Not a lot needs to done to get ready for FAC. But I managed to find some tiny things that could be fixed.
Comments from User:jackyd101 A very nice article, only three comments that sprang to mind below. Congratulations on another fine piece of work.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments and kind words. Dincher ( talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs your support and improvement in the following areas:
“ | I noticed this because it was first nominated on the FAC. I was pretty surprised that Croesus (who could very well be the richest man who ever lived and whose name is literally synonymous with wealth) wasn't on the list. Admittedly, the list does say that "their wealth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures [sic] are scarce in numbers on the lists." - however, this seems to be a cop-out. Essentially, it says that because you can't establish an exact valuation or CPI for those times, you can ignore them. I think that's poor methodology. | ” |
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this for two reasons:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this biographical-article need more references and information, especially on this person's early days about which information is scarcely available, and also more info. about alleged wrong-doings. A sub-heading detailing his relationship with Chelsea and his former business-partners might also help.
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs more sources and further information.
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it need more concrete information and solid references. Otherwise, this will be classified as a stub.
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel there are more things to be done which I can't see for now. After which, I will pass the article to FAC.
Thanks, -- Efe ( talk) 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that one day it can possibly be promoted to Featured Article status. This is my description from
the withdrawn A-class review from July 6, 2008 (no one was available to review it, so I changed it to Peer review instead):
"I believe this article fully covers the brief professional career of Joe Delaney, and his heroic act of saving children from drowning. There are not many references because many repeat themselves, and also because his career in the early 1980s was so brief. Reference #6 (Shreveport, LA, Times article) is archived from a link that was blacklisted as Wikipedia spam. I knowingly did not include the spammed link because it is not allowed, so don't think I left the reference incomplete, because I wasn't sure of how to deal with it. This article was given GA-status in March 2008. The article's photo is from an Associated Press file, and the photo's source link is located in the file's page at Wikimedia's Commons. The photo in the section "Death and legacy," however, is fully my own work sourced from my personal camera. I feel that this article is fully capable of becoming an A-class article on Wikipedia. This is my first self-nomination for an A-class article, and any help in making this article flawless will be of great help to me."
Requests
This is my very first request for a Peer review and the absolute furthest I've gotten in contributing on Wikipedia (I've worked on some GA articles and Featured lists, but this is the first attempt for a future Featured article. All help is welcome! Thanks! conman33 ( . . .talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was created shortly after the announcement of the game in September 2007. The game is still unreleased, and it is updated as new information is released. Because of a
change in Featured topic criteria, this game and the other unreleased games need to go through peer review for the
Kingdom Hearts topic to stay featured. One such game has already been
reviewed.
Any comments you may have to improve the article are welcome and I'll try to address them as best I can. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Okay, a strange one since I guess this info is subject to change/expansion, but I'll review what's here:
Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because while not all that long, I think this article is one of the better written ones that I've seen (that wasn't reviewed) and would like to see what it lacks to become a featured article.
Thanks, Flash176 ( talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (
History of Israel) for peer review because I want to improve it, because despite dealing with a hugely controversial topic it seems to attract little edit warring and because I (said with trepidation) am quite proud of the job I've done on it.
There is a major problem with the
History_of_Israel#1948:_War_of_independence_and_statehood which is very controversial.
The article finishes with the election of Ehud Olmert in 2006 and I am unsure how up-to-date it needs to be.
I would welcome suggestions for improvement to the introduction.
Thanks,
Telaviv1 (
talk)
12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Cool10191
Hope that helps some. Charles Edward 03:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
There have been a great deal of large edits to the article recently, which seem to be spurred on by unaddressed and definitely imminent issues of separation (see
Talk:Republic_of_China_(Taiwan)). Someone is getting a little antsy at the lack of attention the article is getting, but I don't really hold the expertise on Chinese history to do it. Would appreciate a look!
Thanks, Utopianfiat ( talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a tad busy with a nomination over at WP:FAC, but I'll try to get to a more formal review soon! - epicAdam ( talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get an idea of where the article stands. A lot of work has been put into this article to improve it an turn it from a fan-ish plot article into an encyclopedic article on a popular manga and anime franchise.
Things I would like to know are:
Thanks, Farix ( Talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Further comments:
G.A.S 07:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've finished rewriting the episode summaries to the point I can, I can focus on the main article. I still don't see how the plot and character sections are repetitive. Both contain different types of information from different preservatives. Both could be expanded with more detail since details are very limited in both. I also don't have a clue what you are talking about with the dates. I've looked though the text and don't see anything that isn't as precise as sources allow. -- Farix ( Talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
Mainly I would like input on improving the reading of the article, copy edit. Being rather familiar with most of the topics in the article, I would also like other editors to point out what areas may need additional clarification or what areas may be pared down. Pretty much anything else you think that would keep it from passing a Feature Article review, please let me know.
Thanks, Charles Edward 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on it and I want to see what people think.
Thanks, Red4tribe ( talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it is very close to meeting Featured Article criteria. I'd like this peer review to work as a "mock" FAC; I would ask any editor who chooses to review this article as if it were currently in FAC and hold it according to the following criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
This way, I can aviod a lenthly FAC and get any major (and even minor) concerns out of the way before nomination. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've reworked this list to fit the style of List of former Scottish Football League clubs, which has gained WP:FL status. I have the same aim for this article, and with this peer review I'd like to add any improvements or fix any mistakes to the article that will help it achieve FL status. Cheers, Mattythewhite ( talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick comment from myself. I think the lead will have to be re-written. I think the featured list criteria have changed to move away from such starts as "This is a list of former member clubs of the Football League, detailing all the clubs to have played in the league since its formation but which are no longer in membership." I'd give The Rambling Man a shout to get some guidance on the best way to re-write it. Peanut4 ( talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has improved substantially over the past few days. The article, about an Indian actress, has recently reached a
GA status. Even since the GA review, it has been substantially edited. Please leave your feedbacks, suggestions and ideas to improve the article further.
Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 09:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a general review of anything I might have missed or any suggestions on what to add, expand, or remove before the article goes for GA.
Thanks,
The359 (
talk)
04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey! So generally a well written article with a lot of love put into it, but a few things:
I didn't see a reference to things like lap counts, lap sizes, duration of the race, the size of the competition, etc. - this may not be important for racing type events, but would have made interesting stats nonetheless.
Also, the idea of one-make auto racing series is rather interesting - did Procar suffer much from this restriction (I'd imagine that other car manufacturers didn't much like the idea), and did this contribute to BMW's decision to stop running Procar? And what role did Procar play (if it did play a significant role) in the development of its host company BMW? Are there any reasons behind BMW's present plans to revitalize Procar, especially given the deteriorating state of the automobile industry in general? Just some interesting questions that would be cool to answer.
Valce1 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to
GA status. There isn't many references, 31, but they are all, besides maybe 3 or 4, from reliable sources. To me it is written fairly well, better than I wrote
Lockdown. I just need to know if it is written well, all grammar issues are fine, everything is spelled correctly, since I can't spell worth crap, and if I have enough references and every little detail that is needed to pass a GA review is fixed. If you don't mind helping me out, thanks,--
Will
C
21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to be a bit harsh because I really think you have the potential to write really well, considering how much effort you've clearly put into this already. There is a fair deal for you to work on, but most of these points will help you improve your writing abilities as a whole and any future articles you may write.
Some other minor things:
Valce1 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it used to have Good Article status but it's since been delisted after some upheaval. Since then, a lot has changed and it has stabilized in the last few days. We are looking to reach GA status once again and would appreciate feedback. Thanks!
Thanks,
Nirvana888 (
talk)
18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I think it is a very good article which contains many information, probably enough needed for this type of subject. It is about Bangladeshis living abroad in the United Kingdom, and I would like to request users to contribute by looking for any mistakes or any suggestions needed to help improve the article so it can be reviewed to as a Good article or Featured article. Many phrases or words are structured in a non-encyclopedia way, mainly in the history section, so that will be needed reviewing as said by Kabir. Thankyou very much.
Thanks, M Miah 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, quite frankly, I would like to see this article become featured.
Thanks, --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what things we can fix before promoting to a GA article (though I realize it's already nominated in GA).
Thanks, Splat5572 ( talk) 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This reads well and is getting close to GA quality. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you find these few comments to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth ( talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure where to go with it. It is a huge article, but much information has already been split off into sub-pages. I think it will ultimately be a 100k+ article,
but that's okay. It's just hard for me to get a handle on which sections need improvement. Some style comments are welcome, but I would rather focus on the arrangement/expansion of the article's content and come back to style issues in a few weeks when the information is in place.
Thanks, Plasticup T/ C 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I am not sure what else it needs to be listed as a featured list.
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as a featured article. Please review 'Campus' and 'Traditions and legends' sections in particular. Any kinds of comments and contributions are welcome! :)
Thanks,
Jainrajat11 (
talk)
17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I hope my comments helped. If you have a question or want me to go deeper into something, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a key article in the
WikiProject Chicago Featured Topic Drive.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm reasonably confident this article is of GA quality, but it's my first stab at doing an article on an individual match, so please let me know if I've lurched a bit too much into journalistic match report mode at any point :-) --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
10:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
For balance, should we also say what happened to Wigan in the season(s) following? :-) -- Jameboy ( talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade this article to GA status, so I need several sets of eyes to point out things that I may have missed.
Thanks, Neonblak ( talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I basically just need to know how to improve it, and I have hopes of it becoming a B-Class (or higher) article.
Thanks, Theleftorium ( talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it myself, and I have hopes of it becoming a
Featured Article.
Cheers, -- iMatthew T. C. 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got
West Midlands (Regional) League up to GA status, I've followed essentially the same model for this article about another league in the Midlands region. Let me know if there's any bits I need to "touch up" before I send this one to GAN...... --
ChrisTheDude (
talk)
22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for a copy-edit and general readability of the article. I have been looking at it off & on for a couple months and I think I need other eyes to see it. Subsequently, I plan to nominate it for GA. Any suggestions to further refine & improve this article are appreciated.
Thanks, Mitico ( talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers one of the more famous politically-related trials of the 20th century in the United States. It has been stable (except for some quibbling over a quotation). Any suggestions on how to improve it would be appreciated.
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that review. To help me keep track of what I've fixed I'll note here:
There's still more work to be done, but this review helps focus the effort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it frecently failed FAC and I would like some feedback on how I can help this article have a little star at the top.
Thanks, --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through most of the basic recommendations given for the previous Avatar season articles. Nonetheless, I would still like some general input on the article. Specifically, I would like comments on the lead and overall prose. Other comments are welcome as well. Thanks, —
Parent5446
☯ (
message
email)
22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article seems to be a prime
FA candidate, and one of the steps to candidacy is peer review.
Thanks, CJ Miller. ( That's my name. Don't wear it out.) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement - I do not think this is anywhere near FA quality and think it needs work to get to GA. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking toward expanding it to Featured Article status, and I would appreciate comments that help the page meet the
featured article criteria. Thanks a lot,
Malinaccier (
talk)
00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FA. I'll skip GA because large articles tend to scare off reviewers. I've worked very heavily on this article and the majority is now my own work. I know it needs images but I've requested photos here on wikipedia and by emailing people with photos on flickr (but not with a suitable license...yet). I'm happy with it but i need further opinion/input on - the use of quoteboxes, the use of "notes", the length and content of the article (i.e. does it bore you?) and the use of the rugby infobox (stay or go?). Also I'd appreciate thoughts on the "drug ban" section as it's half and half my own work and others' and not sure if it flows.
Thanks,
Sillyfolkboy (
talk)
14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: here are some suggestions for improvement. Mostly nit-picks, looks pretty good to me.
Hope this helps. Thanks for your reviews here Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Second look I like the photos and the changes. I did not find any typos this time - not sure now what they were. Sections seem fine. I like the placement of Personal life better now. Is Skye a boy or girl (assume the latter)? I do not see any problems on a quick read through, seems FAC ready to me (but I am not a sport editor). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I recieved only one short review from three previous peer reviews. The list has also failed featured list status twice and I would like to know how I can improve the article, so that it follows the
criteria. It arguably it is not "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" and therefore I wonder if using further third-party sources make it one. I am looking for any suggestions about improving the article, meeting the criteria or directly editing the article. Thanks!
Hpfan9374 (
talk)
09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhfisch comments:
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on it. I feel that it is, overall, indeed a
WP:GA and am considering nominating it for FAC when everything is in tip-top shape. This is step number one :) So please comment on anything you feel could use improvement, or just anything you feel should be changed. Best,
Happyme22 (
talk)
21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it from a stub and I want to know what needs to be done so the article can become a GA or a FA. I am not a native English speaker and I need some help to check the text for general MOS compliance, especially in the areas of articles and punctuation. I would also very much welcome any advice regarding the tone of the article.
I’ve also got a couple of specific questions:
Thanks, Kober Talk 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I will list this for FL when I return from a wikibreak but see no reason to leave an inactive peer review open.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk)
20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi I'm interested in getting this to featured list standard, but am keen not to use WP:FLC as a peer review, so would like some feedback first before I list it.
Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. Shouldn't be too long before it appears at FLC, I think. Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on the prose in the lead section of the article as well suggestions on the structure of the table:.
The Rambling Man provided me with some suggestions, and I now believe it satisfies at least the basic standards of a good list article, and am hoping to eventually make this a
Featured List article.
Thanks in advance for all your help, Allstar86 ( talk) 08:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it as a Good Article, and want feedback first. My chief question is whether I've covered the topic well enough, or whether there needs to be more (and if so, what?) Also, are there enough references, does it conform to MoS etc.
Thanks, IdiotSavant ( talk) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was tagged as being mixture between prose and timeline and there was no list but a mess. i have now converted it to wikitable episode list and removed a lot of information that shoudl not be there. it has been cleaned up a lot, i like to know any other problems i can try work on and i think the article might b a c class now.
Thanks, Andrewcrawford ( talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to complete a
WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series, and per suggestions there, I need to have this article PR'd, which shouldn't be too hard, as it is just a stub.
Thanks, MASEM 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously as this is a stub, I have barely any comments. Though if you don't think any news/updates will be announced for a long while, you might want to consider merging it to a "Sequel" section of Guitar Hero: On Tour.
That's all that stood out to me. Hope it helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... although its probably a long way from FA, its a GA right now, and I would like to see what could me done to improve it further. Thanks, «
Milk's Favorite
Cøøkie
22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has the potential to be an FA so I would like feedback on what need to happen to elevate it to that status.
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs your support and improvement in the following areas:
“ | I noticed this because it was first nominated on the FAC. I was pretty surprised that Croesus (who could very well be the richest man who ever lived and whose name is literally synonymous with wealth) wasn't on the list. Admittedly, the list does say that "their wealth is hard to estimate and the ancient historical figures [sic] are scarce in numbers on the lists." - however, this seems to be a cop-out. Essentially, it says that because you can't establish an exact valuation or CPI for those times, you can ignore them. I think that's poor methodology. | ” |
Thanks, Bugnot ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Ruhrfisch comments
Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
While this is an unreleased game, it has been suggested for the
WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series that it may be good to complete a PR for this article as to be able to include it in the topic; irregardless or not, I think it is helpful to get a PR done on this to start with.
Thanks, MASEM 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from User:Randomran
I've had a chance to look at it so far. Overall, it's well-written and well-referenced. The problem is the topic is highly unstable. It's comprehensive in the sense that you cover everything that's known, but it can never be comprehensive until the game is actually released. That said, there are a few things you can do to improve the quality right now:
Once again, the prose and the research are both pretty solid for such inherently unstable content. I only found a few grammatical and spelling issues which I have fixed. Just keep the article organized as new information becomes available. Randomran ( talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize this article will be drastically different when the game is released, but here are the issues that stood out to me; mainly grammatical.
There you go. It's a somewhat lengthy list, but addressing these issues should remove any doubt of the article joining the topic. The article is well on its way to GA and FA, but grammar, structure, accuracy needs to be monitored (as I'm sure you're already aware of). Hope it helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have written this article from scratch and would it article to become a
FA, comments on anything that will help it reach that goal are welcome. Thank you.
Black
ngold29
02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few things that I noticed:
Well, there are some small things that can get you started. Good luck with you drive to FA status. - NatureBoyMD ( talk) 02:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nominate this article for GA status and have some suggestions on how to improve this article, which I've been working on for about a year now.
Thanks,
Andrewlp1991 (
talk)
04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
These are my running comments as I read through the article.
I've got this page on watch, let me know if you need anything else. EagleFalconn ( talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its reached GA status, using
Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Reviews and the general GA review process, and I wanted to have others take a look before moving on towards an FA nomination. The only precedent for a FA college football season is the exceptional
2005 Texas Longhorn football team article. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Other than the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong.
Thanks, Bobak ( talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments-Since the structure and relative comprehensiveness of the article is based on the aforementioned 2005 UT football season FA, I will focus on prose (I'll address a section at a time):
Lead
Before the season
Schedule-No issues :)
Roster
Coaching staff-No issues :)
Game notes
Idaho
*"Trojans Defensive Coordinator Nick Holt had previously been the head coach of the Idaho Vandals between 2004–2005; previous to that he was USC's linebackers coach from 2001 to 2003 under Carroll." previous to that-->before that.
At Nebraska
Other issues:
All my issues have been resolved. I think this article is FAC-ready. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is already listed as a Good Article and has gone through a failed FAC, but since then I have tried to expand the article further and I have improved the lead. In the peer review I would like comments regarding how I could get this article to meet the Featured Article Criteria.
Thanks, Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually a big fan of 30 Rock, but my experience with editing TV-related articles is fairly nonexistent. So consider this review from the standpoint of an outsider. :) As requested, I've reviewed this article as I would for FAC.
I did not get too far into reviewing the prose, but I may do so later if needed. Best of luck, if you have any questions just let me know! María ( habla con migo) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I've sorted all the points. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope these help! Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've sorted all of them. It's much appreciated as i'm looking to submit the article for FA in the next few days. -- [User] Jamie JCA [Talk] 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to run it through
WP:FL soon, and I'd appreciate some comments first. The last time I went to
WP:FL (with
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Principals and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford), many of the comments were minor MOS points that I think I've managed to avoid this time round. I should be turning the remaining redlinks to blue in the next few days. The unlinked names are people about whom nothing is known, or about whom nothing can really be said to show notability.
Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished a major overhaul. This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and I'm looking for comments and assistance for this article, but tips and comments on my work for my future edits here!
Thanks, ThomasOwens ( talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: You need to decide if you are going to develop this into a full Wikipedia article, or leave it as a brief summary with links. If it is to be a full-scale article, the following require attention:-
I have not looked in detail at the prose, but will do so if you decide you want to develop the article on the above lines. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
After extensive edits to this article, I decided it would be best to get feedback on how to improve the article. I don't think that featured article status is appropriate for a technical article like this, but an outside opinion would be great.
Thanks,
CRGreathouse (
t |
c)
01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from RJHall:
I hope this was some help. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear if there are any problems with it that'd make unrealistic its nomination as a Good Article.
Thanks, Skarkkai ( talk) 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would love to have some feedback on this since wanted to nominate it for FA once done. This would also help to improve
Hindu-German Conspiracy to FA standards, so all help will be appreciated. Particularly looking for help with prose, grammar, suggestions at condensing, etc.
rueben_lys (
talk ·
contribs)
14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like honest feedback, since the topic is still new, but there has been coverage of the group for a while now. The group is just now beginning to influence Philadelphia city planning.
Thanks, - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it discusses an important epoch in the development of literature in the
Kannada language. The article is well referenced but needs a peer review to improve grammar, presentation and style. Please provide constructive feedback which can help this article eventually become a FA.
Thanks, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. It has recently passed GA with the observation that it perhaps had too many images. I've deleted one, and shifted the positions of others. I'd like further comments on choice and positioning of images, also on the prose generally, and any other suggestions for improvement.
Thanks,
Brianboulton (
talk)
16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
FactotEm comments...
General...
Ferdinand Magellan...
Garcia de Nodal expedition...
More tomorrow. -- FactotEm ( talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Robert Falcon Scott...
Lead...
In general, I really like this article. To this layman, who's own Farthest South mark is 65°15’S, its a succinct, accessible, eminently readable skip through man's gradual approach to the south pole. The only point at which I felt something was missing was Borchgrevink's 1900 return to the continent. Please tell me he picked up his shore party that was left there the previous year. The only substantive thing that I think would improve this article would be a map image showing each explorer's farthest south record (and their routes if at all possible).
My review is based on what you have included. You know better than I what, if anything, is missing, but it does not read like there is anything substantial lacking. -- FactotEm ( talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been cleaned up a lot and referenced now. The article might fall into a B article or higher, if not it be good to get feedback to improve it more.
Thanks, Andrewcrawford ( talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recentlybeen translated by
User:Nishkid64 and myself. I would like to hear your comments so this article can get featured.
Thanks, --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback to complete this list in the most acurate way posible. Note: When I sent the list for the 1999 number-one albums to the FL reviewer they asked to choose between the rowspan or the sortable, and I choose the rowspan.
Thanks, Jaespinoza ( talk) 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this as a features article. Any suggestions, comments and contributions are welcome! :)
Thanks,
Jainrajat11 (
talk)
17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If you are serious about trying to get featured status for this article you will need first to attend to the following:-
It might be a good idea to look at other city articles, particularly those like Washington DC which have recently been raised to FA status, to see the general standards of writing, sourcing and referencing that are required in featured articles. You should not be discouraged from attempting to make bring this article to the required standard, but you need to be realistic about what this will involve. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the recent promotion to good article status and on suggestion by the reviewer to pursue featured article status. Hopefully some good input can be provided to further refine and improve the article. Thanks!
Mvjs (
talk)
12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed the article on
Montreal for peer review because I have been working on this article a lot since its last peer review, and I want to know what the article needs to bring it to the next level (either GA, A or FA). It has over 100 sources (about twice as much as before) and evidently needs some more in the locations I've pinpointed. Any sort of commentary is useful in improving the article. In particular with regards to the way its written, information to add and remove, missing sections, layout, tone, etc. I want this to be a great article and with your input I can help to bring it there.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks in advance, MTLskyline ( talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Dtbohrer
This is just a brief review of the major problems. I'll add more later. -- D.B. talk• contribs 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article has been significantly improved from
the version I started working on almost a month ago, but I would like input from more experienced editors before nominating it as a good article. Considering that the article was flagged as reading like an advertisement and being generally NPOV before my overhaul, I would appreciate comments on if/where those violations still exist in addition to any other general advice.
Thanks, Emw2012 ( talk) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
RJH comments—Here's a few suggestions that I hope are of some use to you:
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I and other members of WikiProject Minnesota would like to improve this article in preparation for the 2008 Republic National Convention which will draw a great deal of local, national and international press coverage. The will corresponded to people viewing this article more frequently than in the past.
Our overall goal would be to achieve GA or higher.
It is that spirit that improvements are needed—so that we may put the most accurate face on St. Paul (and the surrounding area).
Thanks, Calebrw ( talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article recently passed GA. I'd like to nominate it for FA, but I'm not sure it is ready yet, and would be grateful for a peer review. The article is extensively footnoted and is kept up to date.…
Thanks, Wehwalt ( talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just wrote this last night, but I believe this is one of my best articles so far, and I'd like some feedback before FAC. Thanks, –
Juliancolton
Tropical
Cyclone
12:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because FAC reviewers suggest it needs retooling.
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have done extensive updating on it and brought it from Start to B rating. I have followed the WP:MOS and referenced extensively. I would like to know how far away it is from being a GA or FA. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and it was suggested by an editor working on the Wikipedia Ireland Project that I submit it for peer review.
Thanks, Corcs999 ( talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this lists to be as good as possible, and also I want some feedback about them.
Thanks, Jaespinoza ( talk) 06:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I recently got this article up to GA status, now what would need to be done for FA?
Thanks, Me5000 ( talk) 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is a long way off from FA and am a bit surprised it is a GA. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
gulen has driven attention after he voted top thinker in an online poll by the foreign policy magazine. i've listed this article for peer review because the article sounds like a battlefield between the gulen enemies and followers and never becomes stable. the neutral tone is not preferred by the enemies if it does not sound negative enough to satisfy their emotions. and followers wants more in some cases. the community oversee seems to be necessary to end this and stabilize the article. i posted a request on the 'request for comment' page before too, but did not get enough attention from there. i hope you have some time to review the article and provide some useful comments on the talk page.
Thanks,
Philscirel (
talk)
20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I improved this article a lot and I think it has become a really good one, but I still wanted to know if I could do something!
Thanks, Olliyeah ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I repeat anything!
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I desire feedback on how to improve the article. Comments on grammar, layout, clarity, etc., are appreciated. I already understand that the lead needs expanding. I am not truly interested in an automated review.
Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: What is there looks pretty good, but it needs some more work. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to submit it for GAR and would like a fresh set of eyes to look it over before it is submitted. It has gone under substantial revisions since early June and has improved greatly. I'd like it to be looked over mainly for MOS and prose/clarity issues mostly in addition to the standard GA criteria. There is a little bit more content I'd like to add, but as it stands now, it's fairly complete without going into too much detail.
Thanks for any and all input! Yohhans ( talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to FA status in the future. I know it's some rough copy, so help with spelling and grammar is appreciated, but any more fundamental suggestions for improvement I would love to hear as well.
Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Nice and quite interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can become a
featured article. It is similar to the
1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, which recently became an FA. Thanks,
D.M.N. (
talk)
13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments - My peer-reviewing services were requested on my talk page, so I've come to offer some pre-FAC advice. Hopefully this won't take as long as the last one.
Hope this helps. The lead should be your primary concern, but overall it's in good shape. I actually think you have an advantage with this as compared to the other article, because this race sounds more exciting, giving you plenty to write about. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is being reviewed as part of a big
Halo (series) media topic being created, and so this article needs to be peer reviewed. Not much has been revealed yet, so take a crack at what's here, make sure it's in good shape; prose, fair use rationales, other. Thanks much!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
03:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Wackymacs ( talk · contribs):
Until there's more context and information available, don't expect much. — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 20:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the second article in a series, the first being History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942), which is now a FA. I am looking for feedback on the quality of writing, and how well the article flows, especially in comparison to the first. All other comments are welcomed.
Thanks, Reso lute 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, it looks as good as the first in the series. Hopefully, these comments will help improve it further. Let me know if you want any more, otherwise I'll see you at FAC. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the main contribuitor asked for feedback.
Nergaal (
talk)
10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently the
Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month. I am also nominating it for peer review during this process so that we could also get some eyes on it (both individuals familiar with drug-related articles, and others, familiar with the copyeditting process as a whole) as it is improved towards FA or GA status.
Dr. Cash (
talk)
21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it previously failed a featured article review on copy edit grounds. Changes have been made since then which, hopefully, clear these issues, but an independent review would be appreciated.
Thanks, DavidCane ( talk) 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UT
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking about nominating it to be a Featured Article, but I would like to make sure that it is at that point...I don't want it to fail horribly. =) So basically I'm asking for people to read through the article and tell me A) What is wrong with it and B) If it has a chance at
WP:FAC.
Thank you very much for your time! the_ed 17 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a last review process before an attempted FLC nomination. Please, any and all comments are welcome.
Thanks, haha169 ( talk) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't have that much time today, I can't dissect all the prose—I skipped the episode summaries too. Here are the issue that stood out to me.
Sorry for the half review. I hope it still helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
Any other issues here, or can I close up this peer review and put it up for a FL candidacy? NuclearWarfare contact me My work 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as a last review process before an attempted FLC nomination. Please, any and all comments are welcome.
Thanks, haha169 ( talk) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PR by Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs)
Matthew Edwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive comments to improve this article, and also so this article is marked as being audited for a future featured topic nomination.
Gary King (
talk)
02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
And yeah, that's about it. — Giggy 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there are still some problems like page numbers for citations and sentence structuring that are preventing it from moving forward and especially for the sake of the former considering the vast information i have acquired from three main sources - how i can going to get round this, i don't know. The article itself has a good strong introduction and history section plus a wealth of sources and pictures. Overall, a general inspection and tidy up is desperately required here plus some good advice on how to deal with those sources citing page numbers.
Thanks, Kilnburn ( talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Dtbohrer
Here is what I found initially. If you would like more or if there is something you want me look at specifically, just ask and I'll more than happy to oblige.
Intro
History
Governance
Geography
Religion probably could be merged with "Demography"
To take care of the page numbers in the citations, you may want look at using shortened citations. I'm willing help with this, if you need it.
Overall, it shouldn't be to much trouble to get it to GA. The information is there, it just needs to be cleaned up. -- D.B. talk• contribs 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently translated the German page of this article and I am wondering how it might be improved further. I used the FA
Scotland national football team as a model in parts.
Thanks, EnemyOfTheState ( talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a sports editor, but this looks pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Looks well referenced and sources also look generally good. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
A massive Halo media topic is being built, and this is one of the articles that needs to be peer reviewed for it to pass. This is an unreleased game, and so please take a look for prose issues, fair use issues, and any gaps of information. Thanks much!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Thanks. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is an unreleased Halo novel that needs to be reviewed for an upcoming Halo Media featured topic. It doesn't have too much content yet, so it should be simple to review, just check for prose, gaps information, and fair use issues. Thanks much!
Judgesurreal777 (
talk)
17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.
Cheers. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after re-working the list in format and making it more in line with lists of a similar nature that are Featured Lists such as
List of Birmingham City F.C. statistics and records, I feel the list is close to reaching that standard. I have brought the list to Peer review to iron out any kinks before I go to FLC. Thanks in advance for your comments
NapHit (
talk)
20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope this is useful. -- Jameboy ( talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten most of the article and now I need feedback on how to improve it further. Also, what grade on the assessment scale would you rate it (the article looked like
this before I began working on it and it was rated Start-class back then).
Thanks, TheLeft orium 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! rst20xx here.
- rst20xx ( talk) 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to eventually get this article to GA status. I want to know what I have to do (other than expand the personal life section) to get this article to that point.
Thanks, -- L A X 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
-- S R X 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have done significant work on it recently, and would appreciate any criticism with a view to proposing it as a featured article candidate. I've added as much detail as I can right now, there is one reference that doesn't have page numbers. The gallery I'm unsure of, as well as the table formatting. I'm most interested though to know if any readers come away with a sound knowledge of the subject and its history. I'd also like input on some of the references, are they all suitable for this article, particularly references that go to pages that show primarily images?
Thanks, Parrot of Doom ( talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: In terms of content this looks very good - seems comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Still needs some work to get to FA, so, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to know if my efforts will be successful enough to acquire start class for the article. I know that the article can do with some more pictures, a shorter better written introduction and maybe do with another section - governance (which i have been pending) but on a general view does this stand any chance.
Thanks, Kilnburn ( talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly now qualify as start class, but it has a ways to go before it moves much higher. In particular, here's a look at the lead:
If you'd like some additional feedback, please respond here, and I'll continue my review... MeegsC | Talk 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it up to
GA, and eventually,
FA. Right now it has reference issues and jargon issues (the references I'm going to work on right after I save this page). I'm looking for any problems with the text and any improvements that should be made for this to reach GA. I think it should be noted that I have not done too terribly much to this article, and I wish to stick with from now until FA.
Thanks, Leonard (Bloom) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to FA standards, but I would like feedback. It passed the GA, but without much comments on the prose—I presume this may be where the most errors lay. Thanks,
Arsenikk
(talk)
14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and enjoyable article. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
If you have questions or comments, please post them here. I am putting a watch on this page. If you find my comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth ( talk) 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a significant amount of information about the actor, and wanted to see if it warranted a good/featured article nomination, and if not, what would be required to make it so. Although I have some experience with other wikis, this is my first time doing this in Wikipedia, so any suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks!
-- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll do more when I have time, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I recommend fixing these problems, maybe getting another PR from someone else, then you're all set. Good luck Hunter! Kodster ( heLLo) ( Me did that) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
My goal is to bring this article to FAC in approximately a month's time, but there's no rush, trust me. :) My main concerns aside from the run of the mill prose/MOS issues is comprehensiveness, especially in regards to the last few sections: "Fiction and poetry", etc., and "Legacy". What doesn't make sense, what is missing, what needs clarification? BTW, I am more than willing to do additional research if needed. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks!
María (
habla con
migo)
02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a Good Article, and I would like to make it Featured.
Thanks,
Kodster (
heLLo) (
Me did that)
19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is good, but it needs a lot of polish to get through FAC problem free. Here are some suggestions - it is also a good idea to look at some recent FAs on songs and check that this follows them on MOS issues, and to watch FAC and see what articles are getting dinged for. Here are some specific suggestions:
There's a start for you. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to check what is missing to become an FA.
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it contains a very good amount of information and may possibly be listed as a featured list. I want to know what else it needs besides an intro and references. Also, if referencing the entire article with a few general sources is enough - for example,
http://www.etymonline.com/ would be enough?
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This has a lot of infromation, but it is a very long way from FL. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
RJH comments: I hope these are of some use:
Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has just become a
WP:Good article. I would like to know what else needs to be done before I take it to
WP:FAC, as I am all out of ideas.
I am also concerned about the length of the plot section. WP:MOSTV says "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots." This is an article about two episodes so the plot has been split into two parts. The word count for Part 1 is 653, and the count for Part 2 is 453, making a total of 1106. If anyone has any suggestions of how to lower the word count, especially for Part 1, while still making it understandable, that'd be great.
Thank you, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps a little. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. It's much appreciated! Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to raise it to FA level and was wondering what else was needed.
Thanks,
Serendi
pod
ous
22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)
Here's a few notes that I hope are of some use:
Thank you. Hope I didn't offend; this was just intended as a constructive critique.— RJH ( talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
:* Please clarify what is meant by "relatively thick torus of space". I probably know what you intended, but the wording may be misleading to some.
Comments from Geometry guy
I agree with the need for a deep copyedit, and will try to contribute myself to this. One other issue which struck me was the Formation section, where there is a brief paragraph on the prevailing view, and extensive discussion of one alternative view. That's not encyclopedic! Geometry guy 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::It could be OR to say then. Maybe "one theory" and "another theory" would be better.
Geometry guy
08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to complete a
WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series, and per suggestions there, I need to have this article PR'd, which shouldn't be too hard, as it is just a stub.
Thanks, MASEM 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Same thing with the On Tour: Decades PR, I don't have that many comments as the article is so short. Here's what stood out to me.
That's it, hope it helps. ( Guyinblack25 talk 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to know how to improve it.
Thanks, Pruddle ( talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former featured article that I would like to see get up to at least good, preferably back to featured, however in the past I have had trouble finding problems, so I'd like some assistance with that before I start working on it.
Thanks, L'Aquatique talk 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I hope these comments helped. If you want a more thorough rundown, contact me at my talk page. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is ready for Good Article consideration.
Thanks, Spy007au ( talk) 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this to FAC and would appreciate anything that would improve the sourcing, prose or style of the article.
Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel there are some serious style issues here:
"This is probably an exaggeration"... says who? If references can show that Vasari was probably exaggerating, then it means that undue weight is being put on a statement which is regarded as being inaccurate. If the claim of exaggeration is someone's original research then it must be removed.According to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated with Verrocchio on his Baptism of Christ, painting the young angel holding Jesus’ robe in a manner that was so far superior to his master's that Verrocchio put down his brush and never painted again.hello earthlings.[9] This is probably an exaggeration.
Any assistance in reducing the redundancy and making the text sharper and more concise would be appreciated.
Thanks, Papa November ( talk) 13:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on this article and have seen it improved a lot since I have started it. Grammar & spelling mistakes have been fixed and the article is not too long and not too short. I am aware that it is quite impossible for a school article to achieve FA status, but I plan to bring this article to GA, or at least B. I want to know what are the things I have left out, and what can be done to improve this article, before I nominate it for GA.
Thanks, Kristalyamaki ( talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are some suggestions for the article:
If you have any questions on this review, or need more feedback on the article, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Five Years 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review just before FAC to verify what MOS and c/e issues might exist, and weather the language used is accessible enough for the general audience.
Nergaal (
talk)
01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sjc196 comments:
I hope that's helpful! If you need me to clarify any of the points I've made, just let me know via my talk page. Sjc196 ( talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not ready for FAC yet per above and per my comments at Talk:Yttrium#FAC. Stone also wants to put some finishing touches first as well. -- mav ( talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it would need to be a part of a planned featured topic on
Dwarf planets. So I would need to bring this article to GA-class. What is it missing?
Thanks,
Nergaal (
talk)
20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik ( talk) 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
MIT just underwent a good-article review
here with GA-status kept. A major overhaul of organization and content was done in connection with the GA/R and I would appreciate some more eyes on it before listing for FAC in the near future.
Thanks,
Madcoverboy (
talk)
21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it a Featured List. Please respond with any suggestions for the list concerning ease of use/understanding, clarity, format, etc.
Thanks, NatureBoyMD ( talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll do this like a straight FL review.
I am now very impressed with this list. I really like the way it's laid out; the last concern I have is the affiliations being merged into the main tables. If you'd like me to do it (I usually set them up colored and abbreviated), I could take care of that. Let me know here or on my talk page. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've put in a lot of work using
this guideline here. It is still a work in progress, but I'd like you guys to review it as a whole and see how it can be improved.
Thanks, Starstriker7( Say hi or see my works) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my comments. This is a good start, but needs some work to get to GA and FA.
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in the midst of major POV editing and very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article especially where POV and references are concerned.
Thanks, Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No. You've listed it because you have repeatedly lost arguments in the talk page and are now seeking other ways to have your views supported. There is an ongoing "debate" in the talk page, but, since there has been no substantive editing to the article for months, how can you possibly say it is "in the midst major" (or any) "POV editing"? Emeraude ( talk) 10:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you please look at the Good article review of this article which recommends a peer review for this article.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Have done. As I recall, it was you who nominated the article for "good article" review as well, for no reason I can discern other than your continued campaign to have your views prevail over the majority of serious contributors to the article and its talk page. You knew it was not capable of achieving good article status, so one can only wonder at your motives. Emeraude ( talk) 10:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments I am archiving this per
Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy: Peer review is not resolving ongoing edit wars / content disputes - please use the talk page.
I looked at just the lead and saw several problems that need to be fixed (I did not read past the lead)
Sorry and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
LucyMarie seems not to differentiate between POV on the Talkpage and in the substantive article. There has been an incredible amount of POV and ad hominem attacks in Talk page - most of which has been directed against me. Registered users have largely kept within the parameters of normal debate, but most of the abuse and on occasion threats -including the prediction that I will be tried for treason when the BNP take power- have come from unregistered and anonymous users, although at least one of these appears to have the same IP number as User EBleisher. On one occasion this spilled over into a message being left on my User Talk page, which I resent. I hope now that this has been archived we can leave it behind and concentrate on the substantive article. Edits to this are restricted to registered users and this obviously disadvantages the pack of unregistered users who vociferously support the BNP. That they wish to remain anonymous and unregistered is their choice,although the content and style of their contributions on the Talk page would suggest they would have little to offer.
The POV criticisms of the article are rarely if ever specific. There seems to be little disputation of facts as such, but possibly the selection of those facts. I can tell you now that no NPOV treatment of the BNP is going to make them appear in the flattering light they would like.--
Streona (
talk)
08:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is poorly written and does though contain massive amounts of POV for example "cherry picking" three policies which are highly controversial and only portray the BNP in a negative light, is highly POV. A peer review was suggested after a failed GA review and POV and MOS were the basis for which it was requested.---- Lucy-marie ( talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot understand why those more favourably disposed towards the BNP do not add to the list of policies and then an allegedly more balanced view could be seen. I agree with the BNP stance on whaling and supporting Greenpeace - though I doubt that Greenpeace do- and have added this in. However we cannot ignore the defining policies of the BNP. If they are unpalatable they need not have them - nobody is forcing them. If their councillors have achieved anything notable then add this. I have found various claims by them regarding footpaths and street furniture, but this is not notable enough to add. As to it being poorly written- and I wrote very little of it- can we be more precise?-- Streona ( talk) 14:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK-- Streona ( talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it a Featured List. There is a
June 2006 FLC but I think it is not actual anymore. Suggestions?
Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 07:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This has a very long way to go to get to FL in my opinion. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that this article and List of recurring characters in The Simpsons could be merged. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is a mess, has been poorly written (with far too many lengthy direct quotes) and suffers from a lack of balance. I am attempting to edit it to improve it, but it badly needs fresh eyes and outside opinions on how best to improve it so it can reach Good Article status.
Thanks, Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I see you've been having a rough time with edit wars. You have my sympathy. Alas, you have already guessed at least part of what I have to say. Yes, the article needs a re-write, and, yes, it has way too many long quotes. I read quite a lot of the talk page before reading the article, and I see that instability has prevented progress for many months. This is too bad, because it's virtually impossible to write the final lead and to polish the prose while great chunks of material are being added and subtracted. I can't tell for sure that the article is stable yet, but I'll assume so. Here are some suggestions for starters:
I hope you find these few suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog, which is where I found this one. Finetooth ( talk) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it's better than
wp:ga standards but could use some comments and minor cleanup. someone (preferably sb who has worked on it) shld nominate it for
wp:fac eventually
Thanks, Solenodon ( talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I respectfully disagree that this is already at GA class. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks, i want to see if its ready for FL. Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is very close to receiving GA status. When I found it it was a Start/Mid article, but is now covered in references, and has been significantly expanded. There are now pictures and an expanded infobox. Two editors have gone through copyediting. There are not many school articles that are at the GA level, and I think this one has a chance to be the next one. I am especially keen to make sure our referencing is covered, and that the style meets the requirements for a high level article.
Many Thanks for your time and critique, LonelyBeacon ( talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I'm no expert on image licensing, but I'm focused today on trying to learn more about it. I see licensing problems with two of your images.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tidyed up after being tagged for no references just want to know what else cna be done ot improve it, if it ok to have it reviewed for B class
Thanks, Andrewcrawford ( talk) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. *The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive a broad perspective on how it can be improved. Thanks.
Sunderland06 (
talk)
22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite a lot of spelling/grammar issues jump out upon first reading e.g.
Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
That's about it NapHit ( talk) 13:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive suggestions on how to improve this article. Thanks!
Gary King (
talk)
00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Not much that can be said at the point... — Giggy 02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve the article. Thanks,
Gary King (
talk)
22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, generally seems a good coverage of what's known so far.
But yeah, generally looks good... I didn't find much! Good work. — Giggy 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Yohhans ( talk) - Overall things look really good. I just have a few things (mostly prose issues) I'd like to comment on.