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…
I think the "Public Image" and "Beliefs" sections are a little weaker than the history and might benefit from some restructuring, but I don't see the best way to do this at the moment, so looking for suggestions.
Thanks, Sigeng ( talk) 01:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively revised as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK and I'd like to take it on to FAC.
Thanks,
Wiki CRUK John (
talk)
15:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone who has worked for this article. For my review I will draw comparison from the most relevant featured article in Wikipedia, lung cancer. My main bibliographic reference is: Alberts, SR, and Goldberg, RM. Chapter 9: Gastrointestinal tract cancers. In: Casciato, DA, and Territo, MC (2009). Manual of clinical oncology. pp. 188-236. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN-13: 9780781768849. Please note that when I propose changing something in the article, it doesn't mean that the way it is written is wrong; and that this is my first peer review in Wikipedia.
Balanced and direct.
(To be cont'd). Done.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I am primarily looking at the lead, but I see "One to two in every hundred cases are neuroendocrine tumors" but then "The remaining 1% of pancreatic cancers are in the endocrine parts of the pancreas" in the Classification section. Can we be consistent about whether this is 1% or 1 to 2%? And am I correct in assuming the words endocrine and neuroendocrine are synonymous when used in this way? I don't currently think we should we devote a full sentence to the endocrine prognosis in the lead. It's rare and we say "References to pancreatic cancer often refer only to [pancreatic adenocarcinoma]". It also makes me wonder how often one receives a diagnosis of "a localized and small cancerous growth (< 2 cm)". I wonder if we might be cherrypicking things to make pancreatic cancer sound better than it typically is experienced. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the first image in the signs & symptoms section ( File:1820 The Pancreas.jpg) erroneously shows pancreatic hormones flowing from the pancreas into the splenic artery (even in the wrong direction, against the bloodflow). The correct image should show hormones flowing into the splenic vein and the pancreaticoduodenal veins, which then drain into the portal vein. -- WS ( talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially rewritten based on academic works and it needs to be checked against
WP:NPOV criteria.
Thanks,
Borsoka (
talk)
07:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review before it is nominated for GA status.
Thanks,
Hmlarson (
talk)
21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article, B-status since February 2014, for peer review because I want to attempt an FA nomination. Over the past 8 months, it has been improved a lot and I think the page is at least GA-worthy. Could someone screen it on major shortcomings for FA? Especially feedback regarding the neutrality and the length (specifically in the chapter "Competitive record") would be very welcome.
Thanks in advance, Kareldorado ( talk) 11:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Kareldorado, saw this had been unreviewed for a while, so doing now. Will come back with first comments shortly. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an extremely comprehensive article and looks like an excellent resource. However due to its length and formatting it takes forever to load - will come back to this later in the review. Will go through each section in turn and then offer some general views.
Lead
History (1900-1919)
1920s - 1970s
Golden generation
Managers
General points
Overall this is a great article, should sail through GA/FA with a couple of minor copyedits copyedits and a reduction in size. Well done to all those who worked on it to make it this good over the last eight months!
Euryalus (
talk)
11:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've created this article a while back. Over the time, there had been many improvements and was copy edited. I recently sent it to GAN but was quick failed because of factual inaccuracies. I made the mistake of reading through an article quickly and messing it up but that is fixed now. I want someone to review this article and point out any other major issues so that I can nominate it again.
Thanks,
ΤheQ Editor
Talk?
21:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC and would like feedback, particularly regarding neutrality (this having been a controversial article in the past).
Thanks, — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."I think that if you ignore significant viewpoints (the counter arguments here), you'll run the risk of breaching that guideline. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That's all from me. Mostly minor drafting points, as you can see, but the last point really does seem to me to need revisiting. That apart, the article seems to me a model of balance and impartiality. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Nicely put together article that seems to cover all I'd expect it to (although I am no Ernst Gombrich!) A few specific points to look at below, but much more controversial than the painting is the use of eleven "however"s, many at the beginning of sentences. I'd trim most of them out, as they can be red rags (or red flags) at FAC.
Lead
Description
Chabas
Nudity and art
Wide-spread reproduction
Russia and Paris
Acquisition by the Metropolitan
Feel free to ping if you want me to explain or answer anything, and please do let me know when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 10:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's my lot, adopt or disregard at your will. Nice work Crisco! Cassianto talk 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a little long and my time is short right now, so I'll do this in tranches. Looks very good.
Lead
Description
Background
Identity of model
Down to the end of this section. More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
History:
Down to "reproduction" section now. The rest tomorrow. Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The rest from me
All done now. An interesting story, well told. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Sarastro1 ( talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be great to see if it could get to GA quality.
Thanks, MaranoFan ( talk) 09:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, quickly I already notice some issues with article:
Overall, I don't think this article's ready and need a lot of improvemenet. 和DITOR E tails 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated Thanks. -- MaranoFan ( talk) 07:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review.
Thanks, Andreabee12 ( talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
General Note
Ethelwold of Winchester
Historical context
Theatrical ritual
Manuscripts
Metric Rating
Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing!
Jcbjaw12 (
talk)
16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have made some serious additions to this article, but I am a first time editor, and this is a part of a Graduate Level course project. I am not thrilled with the way the seasons are listed as the Table of Contents is so unwieldy.
I still have another 16 seasons to add as well. You can see my progress in my Sandbox.
The other issue I am having is with citing the same source multiple times. This article will require over 80 citations, but right now I am closing in on 150 because I keep citing the same article over and over again. I know there is a way around it, but I keep frustratingly failing at accomplishing it. Any help would be appreciated.
And any other feedback would be great as well.
Thanks, OrangeZabbo ( talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Orange Zabbo,
Hope my below comments are helpful.
Lead section: I think your lead section is just detailed enough to give us the needed overview of what the organization is. It's concise but includes a necessary amount of detail. Structure: the structure makes sense and is fluid from section to section- however as we discussed in class- I would revisit how you've formatted the seasons and condense it so your contents page isn't so long. Maybe put the staff under the artistic directors.
Sections: are you adding an awards section? Or are you including that information in the specific seasons? I absolutely think it's worth noting in at least a subsection.
You did an excellent job at linking your article to other relevant information. I know you have a lot of times articles as sources, perhaps add one or two big ones to the external links section as well.
Images: I don't necessarily know that images are necessary and doubt you'd be permitted to add production images which would be the only way that I think viewers would learn from an image. History: I like how you showed us the history through the different venues and included past artistic directors on top of just adding a history section. Comprehensive: the article is absolutely comprehensive despite you feeling frustrated over the lack of seasons. You're doing a great job.
Accuracy and clarity: the presented information seems to be accurate and supported by an extensive list of sources. The information is clear. Once you condense the references section you should be solid.
Andreabee12 ( talk) 18:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello OrangeZabbo,
I'm going to read through the article more carefully later, but I think using a table for the show listing would be more appropriate. You can read up on using Wikipedia Tables at the link, and I think you'd be fine copying the wikicode for one of the examples and using it as a starting point.
I know it says citation needed, but are Webber, Aukin, and Benson English or British?
I'll be back for more comments. 173.220.31.163 ( talk) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to login. The above comment is mine. Decafespresso ( talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello again!
The rest of my review follows. Please let me know if you have any questions.
The lead section:
The sentence “With a founding mission…” isn’t clear in terms of the sentence structure. I think making distinctions between the physical relocations, the growth in size and scope of the company (Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway), and the evolution of their mission over time might help. You might also want to consider separating the missions to another sentence, with additional descriptions on their productions.
I think “ones from the Obies, Drama Desks, Drama Critics, and the New York Times” should be mentioned using the formal names of the awards and I also think the recipients of the awards (theater itself, productions, individuals) should also be mentioned somewhere though not necessarily in the lead section.
Organization of sections / subsections:
I agree with Andreabee12 that you should add information on Awards.
I think the sections Artistic Staff and Staff should be merged.
It might be helpful to have a section describing Productions/Programs/Series to provide a context for the list of the past productions. It’s likely that the readers don’t know what these productions are especially because many of them are rarely seen or new. I think a narrative that gives a general sense of their programming and a table of past productions would be great.
The Physical Space section focuses on the history of the physical spaces, but is there anything interesting/relevant about the current theatre architecture? I remember the current theater being a black box theater and it makes me wonder how you count the number of seats.
In-text links:
You might want to add links to Off-Off Broadway, awards such as Obie Award, Artistic Director, and repertory theatre.
History:
Was Soho Rep. originally named SoHo Rep. with a capital R?
Today Soho Rep. is called Soho Rep. even though it’s neither located in SoHo nor a repertory theatre. That itself might be a fact worth stating and I’d be interested in why they kept the name and why/when they stopped being a repertory theatre.
When/why/how did their mission change?
In Soho Rep.’s case, the transition from Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway is not because of the number of seats. Even though it is only a matter of union contracts in reality the readers may think of Off Broadway as 100-499 seats so it might be worth noting. Were you able to find any information on why they switched to Off Broadway contract?
Citations and references:
This may help to clean up some of the citations: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source
Decafespresso (
talk)
06:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i and many other people before me have worked on this article and i think many of the issues previously mentioned are now resolved including cleanup, intricate details, and undue weight. Please review this article and if you think appropriate, remove these tags. THanks a lot.
Thanks,
Sohebbasharat (
talk)
17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on the changes and additions I have made to the article.
Thanks, Jsattler07 ( talk) 03:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Julia,
Overall, I think this page looks great!
The page has a detailed and clear overview section that gives important details, as well as organized sections. One section that might be missing is history/origin. Can you tell us something about whoever invented it or first used it, as well, can you tell us how, if at all, the device has changed overtime ( ie. started as gods actually coming down on machines, now could be magic, a new creature, character, or event that might have nothing to do with gods or machinery) it might be unclear to readers how an unexpected event and a god coming down front the sky are the same. Most of the sections are quite detailed, but I do think that you could add more to the examples. Knowing a little more background for each example might be helpful to a reader, and maybe even some non literary examples, like movies and tv. You have many good links in the text and a nice list of references. The information is clear, fairly comprehensive, and certainly related to the topic.
Hope this helps!
Gilliark ( talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jsattler07.
Overall I think you're in great shape. Here are a few thoughts to keep it going.
Really wonderful work. Congratulations.
OrangeZabbo (
talk)
15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
As part of a Quality improvement project I've greatly researched and improved the article on the Hitachi Magic Wand. The article had a copy edit by Baffle gab1978 from the Guild of Copy Editors, and was successfully promoted to WP:GA after a helpful review by Kaciemonster as advised by Protonk. I'd appreciate comments on how to further improve its quality.
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 06:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll make some copy edits as I look through this. The one thing I'm concerned about is the inclusion of web addresses in text, e.g. "The "Fluffer Tip Wand Attachment" sold at thepleasurechest.com may be placed over the device and can be used to mimic the sensation of cunnilingus." and "The Hitachi Magic Wand was available for purchase in 2003 through the website drugstore.com." I'm not certain these sentences are really needed and I don't understand the significance of either individual point of sale to an encyclopedia article. Protonk ( talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) A question: Has there been a systematic review (as preferred by WP:MEDRS) of the studies involving the magic wand? We have a number of individual studies, but are there longer term assessments out there? If we have one for anorgasmia we can probably fold that into the discussion of Struck and Ventegodt. Their selection of the magic wand is perhaps interesting, but not enough to support singling the study out in a general summary. Protonk ( talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Protonk:The Struck 2008 study is cited in this review of literature:
Haven't been able to access full text of the article yet, but does that look like the sort of source you were describing, above? — Cirt ( talk) 20:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Another question: how do we refer to the subject in the article? I'm seeing (outside the section which discusses name changes) "Magic Wand", "Hitachi Magic Wand", "Magic Wand by Hitachi". I'd either recommend referring to it always as "Hitachi Magic Wand" (as that keeps it consistent with the title) or listing "Magic Wand" as another name in the first sentence and using just "Magic Wand" throughout. Protonk ( talk) 15:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking any better
Protonk? Again I'd much rather trim down total size of text of certain sources rather than eliminate those sources completely, but I'm up for additional copy editing suggestions and ideas if you've got any further? —
Cirt (
talk)
19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is it – Evelyn Waugh's greatest novel, according to...well, me I suppose, although others have said much the same thing. He was in a miserable frame of mind when he wrote it, and much of the book reflects this, but the wit and imagination is undiminished. I really enjoyed researching and writing this article, which sadly has been something of a rare event lately. It's quite short – have I missed anything? As always, I'd be most grateful for any reviewers' comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
These are going to be very slim pickings:
I am delighted to learn why there are two versions of the text. I had occasionally wondered why, without ever bothering to find out. Similarly, thank you for saying where the title comes from: I count myself an Eliotist, so should have known. I thought it was from the Bible. For the rest, this is a superb article. It looks completely effortless – which despite your disclaimer, above, I suspect means you have made a very considerable effort to ensure that it so appears. – Tim riley talk 09:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SchroCat
Very nice article indeed. I made a few minor tweaks (see here), which I think are correct, but please feel free to revert if you disagree.
"The Man Who Liked Dickens"
Writing and title history
Critical reception
FNs
All good aside from that, but please drop me a line if you need any clarification; please let me know when you go to FAC with this. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Wehwalt Very little to comment on. Quite impressively done. Usual quibbles.
Comments from Tonystewart14 I thought I'd chime in as you've submitted reviews for the Liberty in North Korea and Leo Frank articles and I wanted to contribute back to you. I noticed you have TFA for Carsten Borchgrevink, so congrats on that! Anyway, here are a few things I noticed:
Hope this helps. Don't worry if you disagree with something I've said - I'd like to see your response to my feedback and use it to further develop my skills as a Wikipedia editor. You can help me as much as I'm helping you! Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any other issues with the article.
Brianboulton (
talk)
11:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially increased the content of the article by adding two images, five section, and have completely rewritten the lead paragraph. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Jcbjaw12 ( talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jessie,
First, I really liked this article and this it looks great!
Structure, Format, and Appearance: Overall, the lead section is detailed (maybe too detailed, you could even have a section describing the genre), straightforward, and clear. As well, the article has a well structured body with headings the organize the contents. I do think you could add a section on the significance of academic drama so that we know its historical importance, what it effected, and why it matters. Your article has plenty of useful links in the text and a great reference section. I think a great place to add links might be in the list of plays and playwrights. I could imagine a reader wanting to be able to click to learn more about a particular piece.
Content and Sources: The information is very clear, relevant, accurate, and comprehensive. As I mentioned before, there could be a bit more history/historical development in terms of what led scholars to create academic drama and what was gained after they did. I really appreciated the way you backed up your statements with stories that showed how you got there.
Overall: I think this article is looking really good and much improved. I think readers will find this page very useful! Hopefully my comments help a little. Great Job!
Gilliark ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The article looks great and I've looked through your edits. You've obviously improved this article substantially.
Structure: The lead section has a lot of information and clearly states what the article is all about. The way you've organized your content makes sense and the artiucle flows well. The in text citations are very helpful and you could probably add a few more. I also enjoyed how in deopth your "classic drama performed" and "English Drama Performed" section.
Content: The added information to this article is clear and comprehensive. I learned a lot from reading this article and you made the information seem accessible even though you're talking about events that occurred in the 16th centuury. This article is very readable.
Sources: Information was cited really well, the sources used were legitamite and accurate. Again, you've transformed this article and I found it comprehensive and readable.
I do agree with Gillian. A section regarding Historical Signifigance could include the result of these academic dramas, influenced works and historical figures, and the affect ion the art form in general.
I hope my comments helped Jessie!
It's a really nice expansion on the article. However, you might want to link the term
classical drama and add a link or few words to explain what neoclassical drama is - knowing nothing of the topic, I'm not quite sure what that is.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am editing this article as an educational assignment for my theatre history course, and I've listed this article for peer review for any suggestions on which sections require improvements the most. It'd be great if you could provide some thoughts on whether the "History" section needs more content. The article is still in development, and I plan to continue editing for another month.
Thanks, Decafespresso ( talk) 05:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Decafespresso,
Your structure, format and appearance are great. The lead section states a clear overview of the article, and everything in detailed in the body. The sections are subsections are very well organized, and you have a lot of good links, both internal and external. Your images are great, and very well placed. They illustrate each section well. You have added a lot of good history, and it is clearly stated. There are a few little things that need clarification/ironing out, but the article is very well done.
Etymology- I found this section a little hard to read, and it took me a few times to figure out why. There could be a comma after "as time passed on" and after "except for Sarugaku." Breaking up the sentence will clarify what you are saying.
History-Is there a way to clarify Zeami's age when Yoshimitsu fell in love with him? I think Daniel Gerould in Theater, Theory, Theater says he was 12. "child actor" is a bit broad.
Masks- "However" in the 3rd paragraph isn't necessary. Also, I like the fact about rare Noh masks in private collections. Can you add a citation for that?
Props-In the first paragraph, you say "in either case," and it doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean the singers and musicians? Or maybe you mean "in both cases" or "in every case"?
*Perhaps using "set pieces" instead of "stage props" will clarify how hand props and stage props are different from each other a little better.
Audience Etiquette- instead of "there are seatings," you can say "is seating."
Influences in the West-Interesting section, but I'm unclear as to why and how these artists are/were influenced by Noh. Perhaps and explanation before the list will help.
I hope this helps. Deliirving ( talk) 16:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Decafespresso,
I agree with Deliirving in that your structure is very solid. The outline provided at the beginning of the article is helpful to users who might only want certain information about Noh theater. The article is easy to following and understand as you read through all the sections and I appreciate all the links you have provided.
The area where I think you could improve upon is "Influences in the West". I think it is a good start that you have people listed who have been influenced by Noh, but I would like to know more. How were they influenced? Is there specific work that you can see aspect of Noh theater within/how is Noh represented in their work?
Also, a lot of the subsections are lacking references. I think for creditability, adding references/citations would continue to improve this article a lot.
It is nice that you have a fully flushed out section at the end with external links and further reading.
Overall it is a very comprehensive article and I think you are doing a great job with the edits. Jsattler07 ( talk) 19:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work expanding this article. You could use more
wikilinks though. It's safe to assume that a fair proportion of readers will have a limited knowledge about the topic. Terms like
Sarugaku,
Kyōgen,
Sangaku and
Dengaku all have Wikipedia articles about them; links could help readers who don't know much about this.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.
Thanks, Amy E Hughes ( talk) 17:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gilliark,
Great introduction. I think it is nice and succinct and functions well as an overview of the topic. I also appreciate the effort and care you have put into citing your sources throughout the entire article. It really adds to the article to give it credibility and authority.
This sentence in "Significance" is missing a word- "The sources of influence for the emerging national theatre of Spain were as diverse as the theatre that the nation produced during the Golden Age". Also, are you taking about the influence that the Spanish theater has had on the world at the time or the influence that other theater forms in other counties have had on Spanish theater? It wasn't that clear to me with the way some of the sentences are arranged and structured. I think the material is there, but you might need to re-arrange it so it flows a little easier.
Costumes-Did certain troops have their own small wardrobe of costumes? I remember talking about that in class. I think that might be worth mentioning.
I love the genres section. I think it is great that you pointed out that all types of drama were performed for all different types of audiences. This section is very thorough and well done!
Within the Actors and Companies section, it might be good to flush out more the fact that we started to see theater managers during Spanish Golden Age theater. You mentioned about companies and that actors worked for managers, but I think a little more information on the history and emergence of the managers would benefit this section.
Hope these comments helped. Overall-great job and I can't wait to read the finished product! Jsattler07 ( talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent work, so far! Particularly well cited.
“as well as the in importance” – something is wonky there
Do you need a separate heading for the overview? Could it just go with the description above?
“accessible art form” what does that mean? All could attend? All did attend? Perhaps some elaboration is necessary.
Is “straight play” really a real term? Wow. I guess there’s a link. A “play” seems like an adequate term since there’s nothing needed to differentiate between them and musicals since that’s not really a thing yet.
Italicize comedia nueva
I think “loa” and “autos sacramentales” should also be italicized throughout. I’m not sure it’s capitalized either. You have quite a bit of Spanish words here that all may need italics—corrales, cazuelas, etc. Certainly you’ll want to italicize your play titles.
Do you feel that these should bulleted lists? Or paragraph descriptions? I feel like I'm used to seeing paragraphs rather than lists on Wikipedia. Up to you.
Your citations and references look really tidy. Keithpaulmedelis ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Very nice work. However, a couple sections seem to consist primarily of bullet point when ordinary text would do better. For example, the subsections under
Genres would be better in non-bulleted prose, as would the
Actors and companies. The playwrights are fine in list form, but an introductory sentence would improve the section. Finally there are a few bits of odd wording - like "very unique" (unique means singular, "very" is redundant).
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
It is a required part of my class assignment.
I'd love feedback on:
-If the article is achieving neutrality
-If the current content is clear and supported by the writing
-What you feel is missing...in addition to the blank sections currently lacking content which I will try to write in the next week
Thanks,
Jessiechapman (
talk)
21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few things I noticed:
Hope this helps, Deliirving ( talk) 14:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice job expanding that article. Just a few comments
Thoughtful, comprehensive expansion on this article. Here are a few ideas to mull over:
Great work! I look forward to seeing how you go with the rest. Good luck!
Mcraab123 (
talk)
03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The previous peer review had no comments, and after a long absence from editing Wikipedia I would like to know how to proceed.
Thanks, → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 23:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feed back on what more to add. I have covered many aspects of the plays, but I feel there are more areas to cover. Also, I'm worried that the writing feels a bit disjointed, and any suggestions on how to clean it up would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Deliirving ( talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead Section
Labeling and structure
Defining characteristics
Tragicomedy
History
Performances
Metric Rating
Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jcbjaw12 ( talk) 15:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave, Other Jessie's edits were very thorough, and I second her feedback. In reference to the feedback you were seeking, I don't find the writing to be terribly disjointed at all. In terms of content I think you cover a lot and the only major thing I judge is missing is the potential influence of Shakespeare's biography on the writing of his later plays. Perhaps this could be added to the history section, which would then be 'history and biography'. The death of Shakespeare's son and his return to Stratford and time spent with his daughters before writing the late romances, for example may well have influenced the father/daughter relationships that appear in each. More specifics:
There is a lot of content and I believe all you really need is fine-tuning. Always Jessiechapman ( talk) 16:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work on the expansion. One thing you could do to improve the article would be to link a lot of the names in the Performances section. People like Samuel Phelps, Henry Irving, and most of the others have Wikipedia articles about them. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of carping from me above, and so let me close by saying that I enjoyed this article, and that you have made an excellent start in expanding and improving it. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it satisfies the requirements to be rated as a Class C article, or higher. It has a reasonably thorough coverage of the subject, a scrupulous attention to citations by reliable sources, and no major weaknesses.
Thanks,
CaesarsPalaceDude (
talk)
17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done significant amounts of research into the Leo Frank case and while he is not particularly well known, his murder trial led to the formation of the
Anti-Defamation League and the revival of the
Ku Klux Klan in the 1910s.
This article is currently B-class and I want to get a picture of what it needs for GA quality. In particular, I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent in their format. Any other content or general advice is also welcome.
Thanks, Tonystewart14 ( talk) 04:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a few specific questions and observations I've thought of since creating this peer review request. Any feedback on these points, or on the article in general, is much appreciated.
A few comments to kick off the review:
To be continued Brianboulton ( talk) 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there not any book other than Dinnerstein or any non-Dinnerstein derivative source that has that quote in it? I'd imagine one of the other major writers would have mentioned it. I didn't see it in Oney from a brief glance, but I would think that another source exists.
By the way, I requested a peer review of the Leo Frank article, so hopefully we can get some good feedback! I fixed some other references, so I think it's pretty close to GA quality. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gulbenk for posting this here. I changed the header to level 4 instead of level 2 per the specifications at the top of this page (commented out). The question above is about citation #60 and whether or not it's reliable. I posted above that it might be better to just omit that sentence altogether, so I wanted to get an opinion on that.
I'm also working on addressing the comments that Brian has made so far, and will publish them here once his review is finished. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a response to each of Brian's points. I'm still looking for a few sources (see the first point under Background), but everything else is covered. I also updated the Leo Frank page with these improvements.
Tonystewart14 ( talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would not agree that it is apparent that Mary Phagan was raped. The euphemism "outraged" may actually be appropriate in this case. She may have been mutilated. Frank was said to be incapable of normal sex. Dorsey had evidence that he performed cunnilingus on prostitutes. Or Conley may have violated the corpse, post mortem, in a scenario where Frank is the murderer and Conley is the opportunist. In either case, the charge of rape was never made or (I believe) asserted at trial. Gulbenk ( talk) 12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also disagree with the removal of language related to the low wages and demographics of the pencil factory workers, and deletion of the notation that "northern industrialists" were held in low regard. Those short sentences provide some basis for the latent anger which still gripped the post-war South, and was expressed by Populist Party candidates like Tom Watson, in the years leading up to the murder and trial. This information provides some foundation for understanding the passion of the crowd, and explains Lindemann's statement that "the powerless experienced a moment of exhilaration in seeing the defeat and humiliation of a normally powerful and inaccessible oppressor". Gulbenk ( talk) 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gulbenk for your opinions, I'll take that into consideration. Brian, if you have any further opinion, feel free to share that as well (since it's good to also hear from someone who might not know much about the case specifically). Once we hear from Brian, we can decide whether to restore or otherwise change some of the text. I also made the two comments above as section 5 headings for better organization. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 17:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Otr500 for the review. I didn't think this peer review would get any attention besides Brian and the usual Leo Frank editors, so it's nice of you to chime in. I'll go through most of your comments below with my thoughts. I also updated the page with some of them already implemented.
I would just like to throw in that in "the U.S." the term industrialist has pretty much the same meaning as apparently does the UK so I would defer to "if" this term is used in the source.
@ Tonystewart14, good luck as I think this articles deserves a review and hopefully nomination. My reasoning is that this person and subject was, and is, controversial at best so if it can be covered to deserve GA status I think that would be great.
Concerning the "Hang the Jew" content/citation and that apparently was only found in one reference, I will side on the facts. Reliability for inclusion is required. This "Dinnerstein, Leonard" (Dinnerstein) accounts for close to 10% of the references so I will boldly assume that reliability has not been an issue. "IF" this is so then I am not aware of a need to find corroboration just to prove that the otherwise reliable reference is truthful, not biased, or otherwise questioned. "IF" it is left out because of a lack of corroborating references, it seems we would be calling into questions of reliability, and either the source is reliable or not.
1)- From that point to include the list of names, that seem to me could be better presented (the layout of columns), with less space between them
2)- There is a section about "Lynching" and content, then a sub-section "Hanging" that is actually more about events leading up to, and including, the lynching. Since both words means the same result with one being "legal" and the other mob related, I think this can be better presented with either a different naming (of hanging) or leaving it out.
3)- I wonder if such a very long "Further reading" section is warranted? Does someone have an opinion as to when a lot is a good thing or too much?
4)- I looked over (or tried to) the references (per "I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent"), specifically on Dinnerstein (First instance of use concerning p. 5) and the notes. I am not up on all the uses of "References" then a "Notes" section that I assume is to agree or explain (or something), as from a general reading and none-expert point of view (mine), it is more confusing. That, however, is not the issue here (just my dislike of use) but; I stopped short. The 3rd reference, first instance of use of Dinnerstein (p. 5), can not be crossed to the notes as listed;
Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. University of Georgia Press, 1987. Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6 Dinnerstein, Leonard. "Leo Frank Case", New Georgia Encyclopedia. University of Georgia, August 3, 2009.
Did I just miss something or would I need to check all three references to figure out "which is which to go with what" as a title seems to be missing or some link to the specific note. That is the only one I looked at so I would observe that "if" my concerns are valid (as opposed to a lack of understanding) I think the use of "References" and the "Notes", to which I assume they correspond, should be reviewed for accuracy of continuity.
One more note: For the lead, I linked to Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles and put a link to the US House for "U.S. Representative" to make this clear. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are still uncertain about the use of the word "industrialist", might you consider "capitalist" instead? The two terms may have been applied interchangeably, by some, to describe Frank. But is was Frank's uncle, the one who owned the pencil factory, who was actually the industrialist. Watson referred to Frank and others of his class as capitalists, usually "northern capitalists". He used the term as a pejorative, to label those who exploited the poor for their labor. In 1913 tabloid language, there doesn't seem to be a lot of other labels used to describe the management/profit-sharing arrangement Frank had at the pencil factory. Gulbenk ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The current citation for Mary Phagan's birth and death year is from Find a Grave, which anyone can edit (similar to Wikipedia) and I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable source, although it contains the birth and death at the top of the page. I added Frey p. 4-6 as a second source, but had this reverted by another user since that person claimed the death date was incorrect. While p. 6 does start by saying that Phagan was born in 1900, which is incorrect, it goes on to say that "at least that is the death that appears on the girl's tombstone" and that her mother stated she was born in 1899, which is accepted in all major texts regarding the Frank case. I'd like to know if one or the other (or both) should be cited for this fact. Perhaps there's even another source that's better than these two, although I didn't see the birth and death dates together on any one page of a book. It might be worth noting that Brianboulton suggested taking out the birth and death dates earlier in this peer review, and while I did so for Frank's parents and Lucille Selig, I felt like Phagan should have her full birth and death dates listed as she was the murder victim and thus a major character in the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 18:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have read through the rest of the article following my earlier review of the opening sections. I've had to do this fairly quickly, so my comments are not as detailed as I would have liked, but here they are:
Section needs considerable rewriting and reorganisation. There is no date information whatever, so we've no idea when these events were occuring within the timeframe of the investigation. It's just a jumble of claims and assertions, the relevance of which is not always obvious. When did Lee make the reported claim, and what is the significance of the "eight minutes"? The statement that "The police appeared to intimidate and influence witnesses" reads like editorial interpretation.
A few points: by "the real murderer" I presume you mean "the murderer". Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after the no traces of blood were found on his shirt? On a more general point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper report; thus, verbatim remarks such as "White folks, I'm a liar" are inappropriate. Likewise, "For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation" is unnecessary detail. I also see no value in the information that "On May 28, the Georgian said that E.F. Holloway, the plant day watchman, believed Conley had strangled Phagan when he was drunk." – a newspaper account of an individual's private opinion. "The police were satisfied with the new story" doesn't seem consistent with their later re-interviewing him for four hours, and extracting yet another affidavit. Why did the Georgian hire a lawyer for Conley?
Chronology is sometimes confusing, e.g. in the "Grand Jury" section you report comments made at the later criminal trial. You should wikilink the term "grand jury" at first mention. The account of the trial makes good reading, but you need to modify the wording "...as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!". I suggest someting like "On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder; according to one eyewitness there were chants of 'Hang the Jew!' from the crowd outside the coutroom". This accords with the source – I don't think the "better source" tag is necessary if you adopt this wording. In the "Commutation" section you should not use caps for "reasonable doubt". I feel in this section, particularly in the fourth paragraph, there is overuse of direct quotation and that paraphrasing could be used. Steve Oney is mentioned here, with no indication of who he was or is (I see he is later described as a "Frank scholar" – can there be such a thing?). I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)
The phrase "new heights of ferocity" is not neutral encyclopedic language. The list of names is intrusive – mention the few notable ones in the text, and cut out the rest. Can you say by what means the body was transported from Georgia to New York for burial? None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?
"a controversial trial" → "the controversial trial". What are "charter members"? By "carrying Phagan's body at the lobby" do you mean "through the lobby"? More precise dating is required in the paragraph dealing with the pardon application: when did the attempt take place? "It denied the pardon in 1983" is imprecise – does not the source give better information?
You should get rid of all the fictional stuff in the "See also" section. A line in the text, stating that the case has been the subject of film and television dramatisations, mentioning titles and years, would be sufficient.
Sorry to have been so long in delivering these. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Brian for your review. I've gone point-by-point through the second part of your review below. I added two dots to points that I wasn't sure about. I'm also going through and adding sources to statements that aren't properly cited, and changing citations that are primary sources (when a secondary is available) and inaccurate citations to more appropriate ones.
Suspicion falls on Frank
Section needs considerable rewriting and reorganisation. There is no date information whatever, so we've no idea when these events were occuring within the timeframe of the investigation. It's just a jumble of claims and assertions, the relevance of which is not always obvious. When did Lee make the reported claim, and what is the significance of the "eight minutes"?
The statement that "The police appeared to intimidate and influence witnesses" reads like editorial interpretation.
James "Jim" Conley
A few points: by "the real murderer" I presume you mean "the murderer".
Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after the no traces of blood were found on his shirt?
On a more general point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper report; thus, verbatim remarks such as "White folks, I'm a liar" are inappropriate. Likewise, "For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation" is unnecessary detail. I also see no value in the information that "On May 28, the Georgian said that E.F. Holloway, the plant day watchman, believed Conley had strangled Phagan when he was drunk." – a newspaper account of an individual's private opinion.
"The police were satisfied with the new story" doesn't seem consistent with their later re-interviewing him for four hours, and extracting yet another affidavit.
Why did the Georgian hire a lawyer for Conley?
Hearings, sentencing, and clemency
Chronology is sometimes confusing, e.g. in the "Grand Jury" section you report comments made at the later criminal trial. You should wikilink the term "grand jury" at first mention.
The account of the trial makes good reading, but you need to modify the wording "...as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!". I suggest someting like "On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder; according to one eyewitness there were chants of 'Hang the Jew!' from the crowd outside the coutroom". This accords with the source – I don't think the "better source" tag is necessary if you adopt this wording.
In the "Commutation" section you should not use caps for "reasonable doubt".
I feel in this section, particularly in the fourth paragraph, there is overuse of direct quotation and that paraphrasing could be used. Steve Oney is mentioned here, with no indication of who he was or is (I see he is later described as a "Frank scholar" – can there be such a thing?).
I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)
Lynching
The phrase "new heights of ferocity" is not neutral encyclopedic language.
The list of names is intrusive – mention the few notable ones in the text, and cut out the rest.
Can you say by what means the body was transported from Georgia to New York for burial?
None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?
Aftermath
"a controversial trial" → "the controversial trial".
What are "charter members"?
By "carrying Phagan's body at the lobby" do you mean "through the lobby"?
More precise dating is required in the paragraph dealing with the pardon application: when did the attempt take place? "It denied the pardon in 1983" is imprecise – does not the source give better information?
General
You should get rid of all the fictional stuff in the "See also" section. A line in the text, stating that the case has been the subject of film and television dramatisations, mentioning titles and years, would be sufficient.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been slowly obsessively editing the page in near isolation over the last 2 months (some times making errors), I am not expecting it to make Good Article status but recommendations for improvements & contributions, by a fresh pair of editing eyes would be an asset and appreciated.
Thanks,
-- BOD --
22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because omho this article is very good and may be FP. Criticism - that's what I need.Thank you!
Thanks,
Andrew J.Kurbiko (
talk)
01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this up to FA status. Already going through a GA review, the article's topic has been getting a decent amount of notability (promo single release, charts, live performances and critical reception), and I feel every bit of info important to the subject (minor and major) are present in the article, with all references reliable and non-questionable. In addition, I think this article is written great and the images all have fair licenses with correct source information. Any suggestions are welcomed.
Thanks,
和DITOR
E
tails
17:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The previous peer review only received one comment, so I've re-listed it now because I am nearly submitting this for FAC. I am very enthusiastic about this article and game, so any comments that might help the FAC process a less of a nightmare would be very much appreciated.
Thanks, ☠ Jag uar ☠ 13:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Gah, I meant to get around to reviewing this and ended up forgetting. Here, I need to finish up an essay for Japanese and then I can start reviewing. Sorry about that. Tezero ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tezero ( talk) 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
I'm listing this article for peer review as it was recently promoted a GA and I'm hoping I can get it to FA real soon. Any feedback is appreciated!
Thanks, Erick ( talk) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
So sorry that I haven't gotten to this sooner, I've been so busy! It appears that the disambiguation and external links tools are down as of this writing, so I will have to come back for those later on. In the meantime, some comments I have:
WikiRedactor ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
John Barrymore was a truly great actor. Possibly the finest thespian America has ever produced, his 1925 Hamlet was a huge success and he was lauded by fellow thesps such as
John Gielgud and
Orson Welles. Behind the mask lay a very different and damaged creature who had been an alcoholic from the age of 14. His drinking, and his destructive behaviour wrecked four marriages, his career and his reputation. He ended his career playing parodies of himself in shoddy B-movies in order to pay off some of his huge debts.
This article has gone through a substantial re-write recently, since which Ssilvers has been very generous with his time and effort in both ensuring it reads well, and is correctly done in American English (a little alien for me to get completely right throughout!) Any and all comments that will aid this article's progress towards FAC standard are welcomed. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Very little from me, simply because it's a beautifully constructed article, splendidly sourced and immensely readable. I had already looked at it during work-in-progress, and it was no hardship to read it a second time for PR. Nor will it be one to read it a third time at FAC.
That's my lot. A pleasure to read the article, and a pleasure to review it. Tim riley talk 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a trio of minor gripes for the moment; I hope to have more time after this evening, and will add a little more then.
Brianboulton ( talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the first instalment of my main review, covering the first three main sections
To be resumed Brianboulton ( talk) 12:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The remaining sections should be done tomorrow. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see that a great deal of work has gone into this article. I hope my comments and suggestions here are helpful, also the few minor edits I have made to the text. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to one and all: a very useful PR and I've covered most of the comments. There are a couple of more comments that need some in-depth work that I'll work on pre-FAC. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
23:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a perspective from someone who is interested or specializes in meteorology. The storm is almost a year old and I want to at least hopefully get things to a nice article. Generally looking for what could be fixed, changed and etc. Looking to get this article to good article grading after a failed GA review due to missing a few points of
the criteria.
Thanks,
///EuroCar
GT
18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to enhance this historical context and highlight the artistic significance of the opera La Dafne. All citations and content reference reviews are appreciated.
Thanks, LMR0804 ( talk) 05:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, LMR0804. Congratulations on learning to navigate the Wikipedia world!
Structure, Format and Appearance looks good so far. As you move forward, here are a few ideas on how to expand:
Content and Sources
You conflate some information on the two early Dafne attempts. It looks like this page is meant to be the Gagliano, and this one /info/en/?search=Dafne is meant to be the earlier Peri one. Good idea to expand the Gagliano page. It looks like that opera is performed from time to time. Here are some thoughts on citations:
Good luck on your next steps! Mcraab123 ( talk) 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I’m sure you have lots of work in store. And I’m intrigued to see where you head with this article. A few minor edits and then broader stuff.
“first full length opera ever composed” – “ever” is redundant
any further elaboration wanted on the synopsis? Seems brief for an entire opera - maybe separated by act/scene or however it's organized.
“late February, 1608.” no comma needed
I'm curious as to why I care about La Dafne. It sounds influential in that it's the first but maybe what led to it's creation would be insightful. Maybe a breif history of opera is important or at least the formative years. If it is the first, what came after and/or was influenced by it?
is there a link for favola in musica? Could you define it? Keithpaulmedelis ( talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi LMR0804, the current lead written by you is passing wrong information, probably because you're confusing Peri's and Gagliano's operas, as also noted by Mcraab123.
Jacopo Peri's Dafne (1598) is the first ever opera; the earliest surviving opera is Euridice (1600), also by Peri. Monteverdi's L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest surviving opera that is still regularly performed today, and Gagliano's La Dafne came only in 1608.
Keithpaulmedelis asked for a definition of favola in musica: it's just Italian for "fable set to music", an attempt by music publishers of that time to explain what that novelty was all about. This expression also appeared in the first edition of L'Orfeo. — capmo ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Brianboulton ( talk) 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Added comments':
Viva-Verdi (
talk)
00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be great to see if it could get to FA quality. Zak has retired since the page was brought to GA. Any extra eyes on grammar would be appreciated.
Thanks, Cptnono ( talk) 12:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Nice article! I found something that has no citation in the Retirement section(lol), but I found another one. Why are you putting in citations before the sentence is over? That makes no sense. The article is very good. It grasps a lot of what a reader would ask from an article. That is definitely checked off on the featured article checklist. Out of all, I think with a little scanning over, you could send your article for examination! EMachine03 ( talk) 11:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.
Thanks, Amy E Hughes ( talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Mcraab123. The article has come a long way. Congratulations! Here are my thoughts on work that could still be done:
Good Luck! OrangeZabbo ( talk) 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Marni,
Keep up the great work. Always Jessiechapman ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work expanding the article. One place you could improve is in capitalization - per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section headers are not supposed to be capitalized (beyond the first word and any proper nouns). Similarly, while Christian should be capitalized, theology should not.
You could also add some more
wikilinks, especially to terms that not all readers might be familiar with (like
Christian theology).
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to make this article reach Featured status, but it likely needs quite a bit more work and input. Anything you can contribute would be great.
Thanks,
ɱ
(talk)
05:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Known as an "taciturn" character, Mika Häkkinen enjoyed success when he secured the Formula One World Drivers' Championship twice and has also competed in touring car and sports car racing. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback on how this article could be improved as I want to get this article to GA status with the view of an possible featured article nomination.
Thanks, Z105space ( Talk to me!) 22:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
First half:
Bogger (
talk)
07:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (Currently seeking review of
New Zealand national team nomenclature based on the "All Blacks")
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm curious to see how far this article is away from
featured article status. It's passed as a good article nominee recently, and
the reviewer noted that some of the sources weren't "great", but that their usage was fine and non-controversial. As far as I known I've employed every reliable source, both in web and in print, which covers the show significantly—which isn't a whole lot. The series sort of came and went, and so critical reception is sparse (a whole three sentences are devoted to this).
23W
03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, 23W 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's some thoughts and suggestions:
The show received multiple accolades, with
Robert Ryan Cory and Chris Tsirgiotis both winning awards for "Outstanding Individual in Animation" at the
64th Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony.
.
23WSlog (Steve Little), a black-furred monster, is likewise blindly loyal, but lacks critical judgement skills—the more hazardous something is, the more likely he will be to follow it.
. Maybe clunkier, but less vague.
23W
21:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Both were produced at
Cartoon Network Studios.
23WHopefully, these ideas and suggestions will come in useful. Honestly, I think the best thing you could do is get someone to peer-edit it.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dave Gallaher was a man of his time. An Irish-born immigrant to New Zealand that went to church every week, played rugby on his weekends, and fought in two wars, he is most famous as captain of the 1905–06 "Original All Blacks" – the first New Zealand national rugby team to tour the British Isles. He was vilified by many in the press for what they considered off-side play, but the team returned having won 35 of their 36 matches. He fought in both the Boer War and First World War, and was killed in Passchendaele in 1917. My aim is
Featured Article status, so any feedback that could help get this article up to that standard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! –
Shudde
talk
06:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Shudde has specifically requested attention to the military side of the article so I will focus primarily on these aspects during my run-through.
More later — Cliftonian (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry to have taken a while to get back to this. I'll skip down to the military sections
Boer War
First World War
Hope this helps. Sorry for the delay — Cliftonian (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That takes me up to just before the 1905 tour. I will have to resume the review at a future time. Cheers! Reso lute 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, part two, while I await my team's performance in the
102nd Grey Cup...
Overall, article looks to be in fantastic shape. Was a good read, generally easy to handle despite my limited knowledge of rugby. Cheers! Reso lute 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I looked at just the lead section and
did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (
push to talk)
18:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. It covers Hendrix's recordings that have been released posthumously and is in addition to the
Jimi Hendrix discography, which is limited to those released during his lifetime. Since the previous PR and
FLC, it has been thoroughly revised and follows the same layout, format, and extensive use of references and inline citations as the recently promoted FL Jimi Hendrix discography. Tendentious editing and ownership of Hendrix articles appear to be a problem of the past;
Jimi Hendrix and
Are You Experienced are Featured Articles and recent Hendrix GAs include "
Purple Haze", "
Hear My Train A Comin'", "
Little Wing", and
Band of Gypsys. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.
Thanks, Ojorojo ( talk) 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Didn't get any comments last time, so maybe I'll try again. Any are appreciated, as always.
Thanks, Tezero ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Tezero. I'm afraid that I don't have time to give this impressive article a full review, but I hope that these few comments will be of some help to you.
I've not had time to get into the second half of the article, but the above points give the flavour of my feelings about this important article. The main point to address is, I think, that of making it a little less daunting to the average reader. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am preparing to create a Good Topic around the Drakengard series, and since this is the most difficult article of the lot, I need input from other users. Two notes before anyone puts comments down. First: there are bound to be spelling mistakes, as this article is huge and I haven't had the time to go through section by section looking for spelling mistakes. Second: apart from those which are actually referenced, no English voice actors for the characters are available. It is a rather obvious gap in this article's information.
Thanks,
ProtoDrake (
talk)
13:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for a few months, and I have reached a point where I need to step back and have someone not involved take a look. I ultimately wish to nominate the article for GA. I understand that there are still a few biographical details I need to add (such as his administration), however I would like to have someone's opinion on:
Thanks, ( Manoguru ( talk) 06:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC))
Quick comments from Nikkimaria (not covering the whole article)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I mean to promote it to the featured level.
Thanks, Mhhossein ( talk) 06:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I really know nothing about the subject:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've worked on a Wikipedia article and would like suggestions on additional content and verify that it is well formatted.
Thanks,
CEGarcia (
talk)
19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get additional review before submitting this as a Featured List Candidate.
Thanks,
★ Bald Zebra ★
talk
10:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
After a lot of referencing and cleanup work, I have hit a bit of a brick wall and could use further input on possible flaws and additional improvements (a few more refs are still incoming, but the content should be OK as is). I would like to get this article atleast to GA. Any kind of feedback is welcome, some special areas of concern are: 1) Is the article structure OK (logical and accessible)? 2) Is the content understandable for a layman? Which points are unclear or confusing? 3) If any reviewer feels like it, minor tweaks to my suboptimal non-native English would be greatly appreciated (the article had a GOCE review a while ago). But of course I'll try to implement any feedback myself as well. Thanks for any suggestions.
GermanJoe (
talk)
14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments
More comments
More comments
More comments
Remaining open points (moved from Dudley Miles' comments for clarity) GermanJoe ( talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was nominated for at, and then failed- rightly- a GA nomination, but, having taken the advice of the reviewer, hopefully it could pass this time- with the advice of other editors here helping it on its way perhaps? Many thanks from us to you now, and in advance...
Thanks, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That's all from me. I enjoyed the whole article very much, and my earlier concerns about adequate citation have been thoroughly addressed. After some heavy cutting of the remains section this article should prosper at GAN, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of work's gone into this. Some thoughts from me:
Thank you to the editors below above. Gillingham certainly seems an odd oversight! Also, re: the tech stuff like straight, curly, single, double quotes etc, is their any editing software available that could make the task of finding and replacing slightly less mind (and eye!) -numbing? Cheers!
Fortuna
Imperatrix Mundi
11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to answer to Mr Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity (now removed, supposedly after your comment) was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. As for previous direct attribution of statement to Dr Ashdown-Hill in the Succession section, I agree "Dr" could be replaced with "John", just as Hicks is called Michael and not Prof in the previous paragraph. However, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context as it has been done supposedly following Mr Riley's comment, it now sounds like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks and Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. I would therefore personally recommend it should be reinstated as "John Ashdown-Hill has suggested", or "Historian John Ashdown-Hill has suggested" Thank you for your attention Isananni ( talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tim, I appreciate your understanding, am honoured to tell the truth. I will proceed reinstating the removed entries. Enjoy pedalling Isananni ( talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually Deb objections to the validity of Richard's marriage to Anne were indeed raised or there would not have been need to include a "divorce clause" in the 1474 act of Parliament that settled the issue of Richard's mother-in-law's inheritance, as mentioned in the following paragraph. Clarence complained Richard had married Anne by force (ref, report in the Milanese State Papers), probably referring to when he had escorted her to sanctuary in St Martin as an abduction, when consent was essential for a marriage to be valid. It had nothing to do with problems of consanguinity that Clarence shared in the same degree with his own wife. So those objections were indeed raised and documentedly reported and must have been found void and rejected since Richard's marriage was never declared null and the "divorce clause" was never used Isananni ( talk) 10:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Jumping in from the side... I'd argue that it either needs to contain all the works used in the article, or none. My preference (mild in this case) would be for the former, btw. Hchc2009 ( talk) 12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014
This paragraph was included following user Hchc2009’s suggestions that in its turn followed Tim’s suggestion to add a straightforward attribution in the text to the statement that Richard’s father was a claimant to the throne. In view to improve on conciseness and reader-friendliness, avoid repetitions, etc. my suggestion is to avoid attributions in the text leaving them to the due citation (otherwise all sentences should start with “Kendall, or Hicks, or Ross says, which is not exactly engaging for the average reader) and possibly reword the paragraph with something like: "Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."
In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)
I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)
May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section
The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19. I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should books that are not mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index, so I hope someone can help there.
Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I looked at just the lead section.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to assist with the development of the article and would like to know what needs work.
Thanks, StewdioMACK ( talk) 07:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it a lot recently (it looked like
this last month), and I'm interested in turning it into a Good article in the future —hopefully with your advice.
Thanks!,
Bleff (
talk)
07:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I listed this list last year for peer review, to some feedback. We worked on that feedback, and now the list has all the things needed, with more information, nicer look, some photos, etc. I was thinking of nominating this article for a FL, as from what I can see it has met all the criteria. So I want to know do you have any suggestions to improve the list.
Thanks,
Lucky102 (
talk)
18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take another step on article writing and I'd like to nominate it for
WP:FL.
Thanks, Anton Talk 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is admittedly a behemoth, and I am looking for comments on how it can be more concise, where there is jargon not accessible to a non-baseball fan – ultimately, I would like this to be a GA or even FA at some point, but I have been so invested in this article since the beginning of the season, and need some outside input.
Thanks,
Go
Phightins
!
18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi all! This is a GA-status article, but a previous request for peer review went unnoticed. I'm interested in getting this article to featured status, now that the topic is relatively dormant. Not to editorialize, but I doubt Mr. Cosby will be endorsing much in the next little while, so the article should remain largely stable.
Thank you in advance, I eagerly await your input,
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have added considerable content and would like to receive constructive criticism of the article.
Thanks,
Geez-oz (
talk)
10:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a few years after failing a GAN, I decided to improve it since it was a large but seemingly redundant article that was little more than a unified summary of several other articles. I would like to think that the direction I took it in could be a model for other "Transport(ation) in" articles, which I realized are for the most part surprisingly brief. It recently failed a FAR and a peer review was suggested. The FAR never got past apparent sourcing issues. It has many sources (and many claims) and some print sources have been added. I could add several more, but I don't want it to seem like a lengthy bibliography of loosely relevant publications was hastily added to make it look more "professional". Input from editors well versed in proper sourcing is sought.
Thanks,
B137 (
talk)
03:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a fascinating rodent, only found in Oregon. I've built this page up from a stub and eventually would like to propose for FA status. I've worked with the maproom to get the distribution map. I also had to do some major leg work to get suitable images, obtained by permission from an ecological non-profit organization in Oregon. Questions that I have include whether to stick with the common name (Camas pocket gopher) or the scientific (Thomomys bulbivorus). Since most of the literature refers to the scientific, that is what I have stuck with. I have done my best to avoid close paraphrasing and stick to WP:MOS, but I am still not the most experienced editor. Copyedits and even comments on how the sections are named and the article is structured would be appreciated.
Thanks, — Gaff ταλκ 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am new to writing Wikipedia articles. My classmate and I wrote this article together from scratch. We received advice from a subject matter expert and made some edits as per their suggestions but we could use a Wikipedia expert to make sure that the standards are being followed correctly.
Thanks,
Lnk2128 (
talk)
20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I saw the movie Kahaani with subtitles and was enraptured by Vidya Balan's performance, so I decided to work on the movie's awards list. I think it has reached a good stage now and am aiming it for FL. Hoping to get constructive comments. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
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…
I think the "Public Image" and "Beliefs" sections are a little weaker than the history and might benefit from some restructuring, but I don't see the best way to do this at the moment, so looking for suggestions.
Thanks, Sigeng ( talk) 01:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been extensively revised as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK and I'd like to take it on to FAC.
Thanks,
Wiki CRUK John (
talk)
15:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations to everyone who has worked for this article. For my review I will draw comparison from the most relevant featured article in Wikipedia, lung cancer. My main bibliographic reference is: Alberts, SR, and Goldberg, RM. Chapter 9: Gastrointestinal tract cancers. In: Casciato, DA, and Territo, MC (2009). Manual of clinical oncology. pp. 188-236. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN-13: 9780781768849. Please note that when I propose changing something in the article, it doesn't mean that the way it is written is wrong; and that this is my first peer review in Wikipedia.
Balanced and direct.
(To be cont'd). Done.
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I am primarily looking at the lead, but I see "One to two in every hundred cases are neuroendocrine tumors" but then "The remaining 1% of pancreatic cancers are in the endocrine parts of the pancreas" in the Classification section. Can we be consistent about whether this is 1% or 1 to 2%? And am I correct in assuming the words endocrine and neuroendocrine are synonymous when used in this way? I don't currently think we should we devote a full sentence to the endocrine prognosis in the lead. It's rare and we say "References to pancreatic cancer often refer only to [pancreatic adenocarcinoma]". It also makes me wonder how often one receives a diagnosis of "a localized and small cancerous growth (< 2 cm)". I wonder if we might be cherrypicking things to make pancreatic cancer sound better than it typically is experienced. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the first image in the signs & symptoms section ( File:1820 The Pancreas.jpg) erroneously shows pancreatic hormones flowing from the pancreas into the splenic artery (even in the wrong direction, against the bloodflow). The correct image should show hormones flowing into the splenic vein and the pancreaticoduodenal veins, which then drain into the portal vein. -- WS ( talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially rewritten based on academic works and it needs to be checked against
WP:NPOV criteria.
Thanks,
Borsoka (
talk)
07:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review before it is nominated for GA status.
Thanks,
Hmlarson (
talk)
21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article, B-status since February 2014, for peer review because I want to attempt an FA nomination. Over the past 8 months, it has been improved a lot and I think the page is at least GA-worthy. Could someone screen it on major shortcomings for FA? Especially feedback regarding the neutrality and the length (specifically in the chapter "Competitive record") would be very welcome.
Thanks in advance, Kareldorado ( talk) 11:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Kareldorado, saw this had been unreviewed for a while, so doing now. Will come back with first comments shortly. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an extremely comprehensive article and looks like an excellent resource. However due to its length and formatting it takes forever to load - will come back to this later in the review. Will go through each section in turn and then offer some general views.
Lead
History (1900-1919)
1920s - 1970s
Golden generation
Managers
General points
Overall this is a great article, should sail through GA/FA with a couple of minor copyedits copyedits and a reduction in size. Well done to all those who worked on it to make it this good over the last eight months!
Euryalus (
talk)
11:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've created this article a while back. Over the time, there had been many improvements and was copy edited. I recently sent it to GAN but was quick failed because of factual inaccuracies. I made the mistake of reading through an article quickly and messing it up but that is fixed now. I want someone to review this article and point out any other major issues so that I can nominate it again.
Thanks,
ΤheQ Editor
Talk?
21:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC and would like feedback, particularly regarding neutrality (this having been a controversial article in the past).
Thanks, — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."I think that if you ignore significant viewpoints (the counter arguments here), you'll run the risk of breaching that guideline. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That's all from me. Mostly minor drafting points, as you can see, but the last point really does seem to me to need revisiting. That apart, the article seems to me a model of balance and impartiality. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Nicely put together article that seems to cover all I'd expect it to (although I am no Ernst Gombrich!) A few specific points to look at below, but much more controversial than the painting is the use of eleven "however"s, many at the beginning of sentences. I'd trim most of them out, as they can be red rags (or red flags) at FAC.
Lead
Description
Chabas
Nudity and art
Wide-spread reproduction
Russia and Paris
Acquisition by the Metropolitan
Feel free to ping if you want me to explain or answer anything, and please do let me know when you go to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 10:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's my lot, adopt or disregard at your will. Nice work Crisco! Cassianto talk 12:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a little long and my time is short right now, so I'll do this in tranches. Looks very good.
Lead
Description
Background
Identity of model
Down to the end of this section. More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
History:
Down to "reproduction" section now. The rest tomorrow. Sarastro1 ( talk) 23:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The rest from me
All done now. An interesting story, well told. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Sarastro1 ( talk) 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be great to see if it could get to GA quality.
Thanks, MaranoFan ( talk) 09:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, quickly I already notice some issues with article:
Overall, I don't think this article's ready and need a lot of improvemenet. 和DITOR E tails 17:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated Thanks. -- MaranoFan ( talk) 07:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review.
Thanks, Andreabee12 ( talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
General Note
Ethelwold of Winchester
Historical context
Theatrical ritual
Manuscripts
Metric Rating
Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing!
Jcbjaw12 (
talk)
16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have made some serious additions to this article, but I am a first time editor, and this is a part of a Graduate Level course project. I am not thrilled with the way the seasons are listed as the Table of Contents is so unwieldy.
I still have another 16 seasons to add as well. You can see my progress in my Sandbox.
The other issue I am having is with citing the same source multiple times. This article will require over 80 citations, but right now I am closing in on 150 because I keep citing the same article over and over again. I know there is a way around it, but I keep frustratingly failing at accomplishing it. Any help would be appreciated.
And any other feedback would be great as well.
Thanks, OrangeZabbo ( talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Orange Zabbo,
Hope my below comments are helpful.
Lead section: I think your lead section is just detailed enough to give us the needed overview of what the organization is. It's concise but includes a necessary amount of detail. Structure: the structure makes sense and is fluid from section to section- however as we discussed in class- I would revisit how you've formatted the seasons and condense it so your contents page isn't so long. Maybe put the staff under the artistic directors.
Sections: are you adding an awards section? Or are you including that information in the specific seasons? I absolutely think it's worth noting in at least a subsection.
You did an excellent job at linking your article to other relevant information. I know you have a lot of times articles as sources, perhaps add one or two big ones to the external links section as well.
Images: I don't necessarily know that images are necessary and doubt you'd be permitted to add production images which would be the only way that I think viewers would learn from an image. History: I like how you showed us the history through the different venues and included past artistic directors on top of just adding a history section. Comprehensive: the article is absolutely comprehensive despite you feeling frustrated over the lack of seasons. You're doing a great job.
Accuracy and clarity: the presented information seems to be accurate and supported by an extensive list of sources. The information is clear. Once you condense the references section you should be solid.
Andreabee12 ( talk) 18:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello OrangeZabbo,
I'm going to read through the article more carefully later, but I think using a table for the show listing would be more appropriate. You can read up on using Wikipedia Tables at the link, and I think you'd be fine copying the wikicode for one of the examples and using it as a starting point.
I know it says citation needed, but are Webber, Aukin, and Benson English or British?
I'll be back for more comments. 173.220.31.163 ( talk) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to login. The above comment is mine. Decafespresso ( talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello again!
The rest of my review follows. Please let me know if you have any questions.
The lead section:
The sentence “With a founding mission…” isn’t clear in terms of the sentence structure. I think making distinctions between the physical relocations, the growth in size and scope of the company (Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway), and the evolution of their mission over time might help. You might also want to consider separating the missions to another sentence, with additional descriptions on their productions.
I think “ones from the Obies, Drama Desks, Drama Critics, and the New York Times” should be mentioned using the formal names of the awards and I also think the recipients of the awards (theater itself, productions, individuals) should also be mentioned somewhere though not necessarily in the lead section.
Organization of sections / subsections:
I agree with Andreabee12 that you should add information on Awards.
I think the sections Artistic Staff and Staff should be merged.
It might be helpful to have a section describing Productions/Programs/Series to provide a context for the list of the past productions. It’s likely that the readers don’t know what these productions are especially because many of them are rarely seen or new. I think a narrative that gives a general sense of their programming and a table of past productions would be great.
The Physical Space section focuses on the history of the physical spaces, but is there anything interesting/relevant about the current theatre architecture? I remember the current theater being a black box theater and it makes me wonder how you count the number of seats.
In-text links:
You might want to add links to Off-Off Broadway, awards such as Obie Award, Artistic Director, and repertory theatre.
History:
Was Soho Rep. originally named SoHo Rep. with a capital R?
Today Soho Rep. is called Soho Rep. even though it’s neither located in SoHo nor a repertory theatre. That itself might be a fact worth stating and I’d be interested in why they kept the name and why/when they stopped being a repertory theatre.
When/why/how did their mission change?
In Soho Rep.’s case, the transition from Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway is not because of the number of seats. Even though it is only a matter of union contracts in reality the readers may think of Off Broadway as 100-499 seats so it might be worth noting. Were you able to find any information on why they switched to Off Broadway contract?
Citations and references:
This may help to clean up some of the citations: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source
Decafespresso (
talk)
06:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i and many other people before me have worked on this article and i think many of the issues previously mentioned are now resolved including cleanup, intricate details, and undue weight. Please review this article and if you think appropriate, remove these tags. THanks a lot.
Thanks,
Sohebbasharat (
talk)
17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on the changes and additions I have made to the article.
Thanks, Jsattler07 ( talk) 03:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Julia,
Overall, I think this page looks great!
The page has a detailed and clear overview section that gives important details, as well as organized sections. One section that might be missing is history/origin. Can you tell us something about whoever invented it or first used it, as well, can you tell us how, if at all, the device has changed overtime ( ie. started as gods actually coming down on machines, now could be magic, a new creature, character, or event that might have nothing to do with gods or machinery) it might be unclear to readers how an unexpected event and a god coming down front the sky are the same. Most of the sections are quite detailed, but I do think that you could add more to the examples. Knowing a little more background for each example might be helpful to a reader, and maybe even some non literary examples, like movies and tv. You have many good links in the text and a nice list of references. The information is clear, fairly comprehensive, and certainly related to the topic.
Hope this helps!
Gilliark ( talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey Jsattler07.
Overall I think you're in great shape. Here are a few thoughts to keep it going.
Really wonderful work. Congratulations.
OrangeZabbo (
talk)
15:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
As part of a Quality improvement project I've greatly researched and improved the article on the Hitachi Magic Wand. The article had a copy edit by Baffle gab1978 from the Guild of Copy Editors, and was successfully promoted to WP:GA after a helpful review by Kaciemonster as advised by Protonk. I'd appreciate comments on how to further improve its quality.
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 06:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll make some copy edits as I look through this. The one thing I'm concerned about is the inclusion of web addresses in text, e.g. "The "Fluffer Tip Wand Attachment" sold at thepleasurechest.com may be placed over the device and can be used to mimic the sensation of cunnilingus." and "The Hitachi Magic Wand was available for purchase in 2003 through the website drugstore.com." I'm not certain these sentences are really needed and I don't understand the significance of either individual point of sale to an encyclopedia article. Protonk ( talk) 16:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) A question: Has there been a systematic review (as preferred by WP:MEDRS) of the studies involving the magic wand? We have a number of individual studies, but are there longer term assessments out there? If we have one for anorgasmia we can probably fold that into the discussion of Struck and Ventegodt. Their selection of the magic wand is perhaps interesting, but not enough to support singling the study out in a general summary. Protonk ( talk) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Protonk:The Struck 2008 study is cited in this review of literature:
Haven't been able to access full text of the article yet, but does that look like the sort of source you were describing, above? — Cirt ( talk) 20:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Another question: how do we refer to the subject in the article? I'm seeing (outside the section which discusses name changes) "Magic Wand", "Hitachi Magic Wand", "Magic Wand by Hitachi". I'd either recommend referring to it always as "Hitachi Magic Wand" (as that keeps it consistent with the title) or listing "Magic Wand" as another name in the first sentence and using just "Magic Wand" throughout. Protonk ( talk) 15:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Looking any better
Protonk? Again I'd much rather trim down total size of text of certain sources rather than eliminate those sources completely, but I'm up for additional copy editing suggestions and ideas if you've got any further? —
Cirt (
talk)
19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is it – Evelyn Waugh's greatest novel, according to...well, me I suppose, although others have said much the same thing. He was in a miserable frame of mind when he wrote it, and much of the book reflects this, but the wit and imagination is undiminished. I really enjoyed researching and writing this article, which sadly has been something of a rare event lately. It's quite short – have I missed anything? As always, I'd be most grateful for any reviewers' comments. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
These are going to be very slim pickings:
I am delighted to learn why there are two versions of the text. I had occasionally wondered why, without ever bothering to find out. Similarly, thank you for saying where the title comes from: I count myself an Eliotist, so should have known. I thought it was from the Bible. For the rest, this is a superb article. It looks completely effortless – which despite your disclaimer, above, I suspect means you have made a very considerable effort to ensure that it so appears. – Tim riley talk 09:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SchroCat
Very nice article indeed. I made a few minor tweaks (see here), which I think are correct, but please feel free to revert if you disagree.
"The Man Who Liked Dickens"
Writing and title history
Critical reception
FNs
All good aside from that, but please drop me a line if you need any clarification; please let me know when you go to FAC with this. – SchroCat ( talk) 15:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Wehwalt Very little to comment on. Quite impressively done. Usual quibbles.
Comments from Tonystewart14 I thought I'd chime in as you've submitted reviews for the Liberty in North Korea and Leo Frank articles and I wanted to contribute back to you. I noticed you have TFA for Carsten Borchgrevink, so congrats on that! Anyway, here are a few things I noticed:
Hope this helps. Don't worry if you disagree with something I've said - I'd like to see your response to my feedback and use it to further develop my skills as a Wikipedia editor. You can help me as much as I'm helping you! Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please let me know if you have any other issues with the article.
Brianboulton (
talk)
11:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially increased the content of the article by adding two images, five section, and have completely rewritten the lead paragraph. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Jcbjaw12 ( talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jessie,
First, I really liked this article and this it looks great!
Structure, Format, and Appearance: Overall, the lead section is detailed (maybe too detailed, you could even have a section describing the genre), straightforward, and clear. As well, the article has a well structured body with headings the organize the contents. I do think you could add a section on the significance of academic drama so that we know its historical importance, what it effected, and why it matters. Your article has plenty of useful links in the text and a great reference section. I think a great place to add links might be in the list of plays and playwrights. I could imagine a reader wanting to be able to click to learn more about a particular piece.
Content and Sources: The information is very clear, relevant, accurate, and comprehensive. As I mentioned before, there could be a bit more history/historical development in terms of what led scholars to create academic drama and what was gained after they did. I really appreciated the way you backed up your statements with stories that showed how you got there.
Overall: I think this article is looking really good and much improved. I think readers will find this page very useful! Hopefully my comments help a little. Great Job!
Gilliark ( talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The article looks great and I've looked through your edits. You've obviously improved this article substantially.
Structure: The lead section has a lot of information and clearly states what the article is all about. The way you've organized your content makes sense and the artiucle flows well. The in text citations are very helpful and you could probably add a few more. I also enjoyed how in deopth your "classic drama performed" and "English Drama Performed" section.
Content: The added information to this article is clear and comprehensive. I learned a lot from reading this article and you made the information seem accessible even though you're talking about events that occurred in the 16th centuury. This article is very readable.
Sources: Information was cited really well, the sources used were legitamite and accurate. Again, you've transformed this article and I found it comprehensive and readable.
I do agree with Gillian. A section regarding Historical Signifigance could include the result of these academic dramas, influenced works and historical figures, and the affect ion the art form in general.
I hope my comments helped Jessie!
It's a really nice expansion on the article. However, you might want to link the term
classical drama and add a link or few words to explain what neoclassical drama is - knowing nothing of the topic, I'm not quite sure what that is.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am editing this article as an educational assignment for my theatre history course, and I've listed this article for peer review for any suggestions on which sections require improvements the most. It'd be great if you could provide some thoughts on whether the "History" section needs more content. The article is still in development, and I plan to continue editing for another month.
Thanks, Decafespresso ( talk) 05:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Decafespresso,
Your structure, format and appearance are great. The lead section states a clear overview of the article, and everything in detailed in the body. The sections are subsections are very well organized, and you have a lot of good links, both internal and external. Your images are great, and very well placed. They illustrate each section well. You have added a lot of good history, and it is clearly stated. There are a few little things that need clarification/ironing out, but the article is very well done.
Etymology- I found this section a little hard to read, and it took me a few times to figure out why. There could be a comma after "as time passed on" and after "except for Sarugaku." Breaking up the sentence will clarify what you are saying.
History-Is there a way to clarify Zeami's age when Yoshimitsu fell in love with him? I think Daniel Gerould in Theater, Theory, Theater says he was 12. "child actor" is a bit broad.
Masks- "However" in the 3rd paragraph isn't necessary. Also, I like the fact about rare Noh masks in private collections. Can you add a citation for that?
Props-In the first paragraph, you say "in either case," and it doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean the singers and musicians? Or maybe you mean "in both cases" or "in every case"?
*Perhaps using "set pieces" instead of "stage props" will clarify how hand props and stage props are different from each other a little better.
Audience Etiquette- instead of "there are seatings," you can say "is seating."
Influences in the West-Interesting section, but I'm unclear as to why and how these artists are/were influenced by Noh. Perhaps and explanation before the list will help.
I hope this helps. Deliirving ( talk) 16:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Decafespresso,
I agree with Deliirving in that your structure is very solid. The outline provided at the beginning of the article is helpful to users who might only want certain information about Noh theater. The article is easy to following and understand as you read through all the sections and I appreciate all the links you have provided.
The area where I think you could improve upon is "Influences in the West". I think it is a good start that you have people listed who have been influenced by Noh, but I would like to know more. How were they influenced? Is there specific work that you can see aspect of Noh theater within/how is Noh represented in their work?
Also, a lot of the subsections are lacking references. I think for creditability, adding references/citations would continue to improve this article a lot.
It is nice that you have a fully flushed out section at the end with external links and further reading.
Overall it is a very comprehensive article and I think you are doing a great job with the edits. Jsattler07 ( talk) 19:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work expanding this article. You could use more
wikilinks though. It's safe to assume that a fair proportion of readers will have a limited knowledge about the topic. Terms like
Sarugaku,
Kyōgen,
Sangaku and
Dengaku all have Wikipedia articles about them; links could help readers who don't know much about this.
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.
Thanks, Amy E Hughes ( talk) 17:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Gilliark,
Great introduction. I think it is nice and succinct and functions well as an overview of the topic. I also appreciate the effort and care you have put into citing your sources throughout the entire article. It really adds to the article to give it credibility and authority.
This sentence in "Significance" is missing a word- "The sources of influence for the emerging national theatre of Spain were as diverse as the theatre that the nation produced during the Golden Age". Also, are you taking about the influence that the Spanish theater has had on the world at the time or the influence that other theater forms in other counties have had on Spanish theater? It wasn't that clear to me with the way some of the sentences are arranged and structured. I think the material is there, but you might need to re-arrange it so it flows a little easier.
Costumes-Did certain troops have their own small wardrobe of costumes? I remember talking about that in class. I think that might be worth mentioning.
I love the genres section. I think it is great that you pointed out that all types of drama were performed for all different types of audiences. This section is very thorough and well done!
Within the Actors and Companies section, it might be good to flush out more the fact that we started to see theater managers during Spanish Golden Age theater. You mentioned about companies and that actors worked for managers, but I think a little more information on the history and emergence of the managers would benefit this section.
Hope these comments helped. Overall-great job and I can't wait to read the finished product! Jsattler07 ( talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent work, so far! Particularly well cited.
“as well as the in importance” – something is wonky there
Do you need a separate heading for the overview? Could it just go with the description above?
“accessible art form” what does that mean? All could attend? All did attend? Perhaps some elaboration is necessary.
Is “straight play” really a real term? Wow. I guess there’s a link. A “play” seems like an adequate term since there’s nothing needed to differentiate between them and musicals since that’s not really a thing yet.
Italicize comedia nueva
I think “loa” and “autos sacramentales” should also be italicized throughout. I’m not sure it’s capitalized either. You have quite a bit of Spanish words here that all may need italics—corrales, cazuelas, etc. Certainly you’ll want to italicize your play titles.
Do you feel that these should bulleted lists? Or paragraph descriptions? I feel like I'm used to seeing paragraphs rather than lists on Wikipedia. Up to you.
Your citations and references look really tidy. Keithpaulmedelis ( talk) 20:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Very nice work. However, a couple sections seem to consist primarily of bullet point when ordinary text would do better. For example, the subsections under
Genres would be better in non-bulleted prose, as would the
Actors and companies. The playwrights are fine in list form, but an introductory sentence would improve the section. Finally there are a few bits of odd wording - like "very unique" (unique means singular, "very" is redundant).
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
20:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
It is a required part of my class assignment.
I'd love feedback on:
-If the article is achieving neutrality
-If the current content is clear and supported by the writing
-What you feel is missing...in addition to the blank sections currently lacking content which I will try to write in the next week
Thanks,
Jessiechapman (
talk)
21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are a few things I noticed:
Hope this helps, Deliirving ( talk) 14:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice job expanding that article. Just a few comments
Thoughtful, comprehensive expansion on this article. Here are a few ideas to mull over:
Great work! I look forward to seeing how you go with the rest. Good luck!
Mcraab123 (
talk)
03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The previous peer review had no comments, and after a long absence from editing Wikipedia I would like to know how to proceed.
Thanks, → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 23:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feed back on what more to add. I have covered many aspects of the plays, but I feel there are more areas to cover. Also, I'm worried that the writing feels a bit disjointed, and any suggestions on how to clean it up would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Deliirving ( talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Lead Section
Labeling and structure
Defining characteristics
Tragicomedy
History
Performances
Metric Rating
Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jcbjaw12 ( talk) 15:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dave, Other Jessie's edits were very thorough, and I second her feedback. In reference to the feedback you were seeking, I don't find the writing to be terribly disjointed at all. In terms of content I think you cover a lot and the only major thing I judge is missing is the potential influence of Shakespeare's biography on the writing of his later plays. Perhaps this could be added to the history section, which would then be 'history and biography'. The death of Shakespeare's son and his return to Stratford and time spent with his daughters before writing the late romances, for example may well have influenced the father/daughter relationships that appear in each. More specifics:
There is a lot of content and I believe all you really need is fine-tuning. Always Jessiechapman ( talk) 16:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work on the expansion. One thing you could do to improve the article would be to link a lot of the names in the Performances section. People like Samuel Phelps, Henry Irving, and most of the others have Wikipedia articles about them. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There's a lot of carping from me above, and so let me close by saying that I enjoyed this article, and that you have made an excellent start in expanding and improving it. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it satisfies the requirements to be rated as a Class C article, or higher. It has a reasonably thorough coverage of the subject, a scrupulous attention to citations by reliable sources, and no major weaknesses.
Thanks,
CaesarsPalaceDude (
talk)
17:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have done significant amounts of research into the Leo Frank case and while he is not particularly well known, his murder trial led to the formation of the
Anti-Defamation League and the revival of the
Ku Klux Klan in the 1910s.
This article is currently B-class and I want to get a picture of what it needs for GA quality. In particular, I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent in their format. Any other content or general advice is also welcome.
Thanks, Tonystewart14 ( talk) 04:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have a few specific questions and observations I've thought of since creating this peer review request. Any feedback on these points, or on the article in general, is much appreciated.
A few comments to kick off the review:
To be continued Brianboulton ( talk) 17:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there not any book other than Dinnerstein or any non-Dinnerstein derivative source that has that quote in it? I'd imagine one of the other major writers would have mentioned it. I didn't see it in Oney from a brief glance, but I would think that another source exists.
By the way, I requested a peer review of the Leo Frank article, so hopefully we can get some good feedback! I fixed some other references, so I think it's pretty close to GA quality. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gulbenk for posting this here. I changed the header to level 4 instead of level 2 per the specifications at the top of this page (commented out). The question above is about citation #60 and whether or not it's reliable. I posted above that it might be better to just omit that sentence altogether, so I wanted to get an opinion on that.
I'm also working on addressing the comments that Brian has made so far, and will publish them here once his review is finished. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 20:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's a response to each of Brian's points. I'm still looking for a few sources (see the first point under Background), but everything else is covered. I also updated the Leo Frank page with these improvements.
Tonystewart14 ( talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I would not agree that it is apparent that Mary Phagan was raped. The euphemism "outraged" may actually be appropriate in this case. She may have been mutilated. Frank was said to be incapable of normal sex. Dorsey had evidence that he performed cunnilingus on prostitutes. Or Conley may have violated the corpse, post mortem, in a scenario where Frank is the murderer and Conley is the opportunist. In either case, the charge of rape was never made or (I believe) asserted at trial. Gulbenk ( talk) 12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I would also disagree with the removal of language related to the low wages and demographics of the pencil factory workers, and deletion of the notation that "northern industrialists" were held in low regard. Those short sentences provide some basis for the latent anger which still gripped the post-war South, and was expressed by Populist Party candidates like Tom Watson, in the years leading up to the murder and trial. This information provides some foundation for understanding the passion of the crowd, and explains Lindemann's statement that "the powerless experienced a moment of exhilaration in seeing the defeat and humiliation of a normally powerful and inaccessible oppressor". Gulbenk ( talk) 12:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gulbenk for your opinions, I'll take that into consideration. Brian, if you have any further opinion, feel free to share that as well (since it's good to also hear from someone who might not know much about the case specifically). Once we hear from Brian, we can decide whether to restore or otherwise change some of the text. I also made the two comments above as section 5 headings for better organization. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 17:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Otr500 for the review. I didn't think this peer review would get any attention besides Brian and the usual Leo Frank editors, so it's nice of you to chime in. I'll go through most of your comments below with my thoughts. I also updated the page with some of them already implemented.
I would just like to throw in that in "the U.S." the term industrialist has pretty much the same meaning as apparently does the UK so I would defer to "if" this term is used in the source.
@ Tonystewart14, good luck as I think this articles deserves a review and hopefully nomination. My reasoning is that this person and subject was, and is, controversial at best so if it can be covered to deserve GA status I think that would be great.
Concerning the "Hang the Jew" content/citation and that apparently was only found in one reference, I will side on the facts. Reliability for inclusion is required. This "Dinnerstein, Leonard" (Dinnerstein) accounts for close to 10% of the references so I will boldly assume that reliability has not been an issue. "IF" this is so then I am not aware of a need to find corroboration just to prove that the otherwise reliable reference is truthful, not biased, or otherwise questioned. "IF" it is left out because of a lack of corroborating references, it seems we would be calling into questions of reliability, and either the source is reliable or not.
1)- From that point to include the list of names, that seem to me could be better presented (the layout of columns), with less space between them
2)- There is a section about "Lynching" and content, then a sub-section "Hanging" that is actually more about events leading up to, and including, the lynching. Since both words means the same result with one being "legal" and the other mob related, I think this can be better presented with either a different naming (of hanging) or leaving it out.
3)- I wonder if such a very long "Further reading" section is warranted? Does someone have an opinion as to when a lot is a good thing or too much?
4)- I looked over (or tried to) the references (per "I want to make sure that the citations are both sufficient and consistent"), specifically on Dinnerstein (First instance of use concerning p. 5) and the notes. I am not up on all the uses of "References" then a "Notes" section that I assume is to agree or explain (or something), as from a general reading and none-expert point of view (mine), it is more confusing. That, however, is not the issue here (just my dislike of use) but; I stopped short. The 3rd reference, first instance of use of Dinnerstein (p. 5), can not be crossed to the notes as listed;
Dinnerstein, Leonard. The Leo Frank Case. University of Georgia Press, 1987. Dinnerstein, Leonard. "The Fate of Leo Frank", American Heritage, October 1996, Vol. 47, Issue 6 Dinnerstein, Leonard. "Leo Frank Case", New Georgia Encyclopedia. University of Georgia, August 3, 2009.
Did I just miss something or would I need to check all three references to figure out "which is which to go with what" as a title seems to be missing or some link to the specific note. That is the only one I looked at so I would observe that "if" my concerns are valid (as opposed to a lack of understanding) I think the use of "References" and the "Notes", to which I assume they correspond, should be reviewed for accuracy of continuity.
One more note: For the lead, I linked to Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles and put a link to the US House for "U.S. Representative" to make this clear. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 05:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are still uncertain about the use of the word "industrialist", might you consider "capitalist" instead? The two terms may have been applied interchangeably, by some, to describe Frank. But is was Frank's uncle, the one who owned the pencil factory, who was actually the industrialist. Watson referred to Frank and others of his class as capitalists, usually "northern capitalists". He used the term as a pejorative, to label those who exploited the poor for their labor. In 1913 tabloid language, there doesn't seem to be a lot of other labels used to describe the management/profit-sharing arrangement Frank had at the pencil factory. Gulbenk ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
The current citation for Mary Phagan's birth and death year is from Find a Grave, which anyone can edit (similar to Wikipedia) and I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable source, although it contains the birth and death at the top of the page. I added Frey p. 4-6 as a second source, but had this reverted by another user since that person claimed the death date was incorrect. While p. 6 does start by saying that Phagan was born in 1900, which is incorrect, it goes on to say that "at least that is the death that appears on the girl's tombstone" and that her mother stated she was born in 1899, which is accepted in all major texts regarding the Frank case. I'd like to know if one or the other (or both) should be cited for this fact. Perhaps there's even another source that's better than these two, although I didn't see the birth and death dates together on any one page of a book. It might be worth noting that Brianboulton suggested taking out the birth and death dates earlier in this peer review, and while I did so for Frank's parents and Lucille Selig, I felt like Phagan should have her full birth and death dates listed as she was the murder victim and thus a major character in the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 18:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have read through the rest of the article following my earlier review of the opening sections. I've had to do this fairly quickly, so my comments are not as detailed as I would have liked, but here they are:
Section needs considerable rewriting and reorganisation. There is no date information whatever, so we've no idea when these events were occuring within the timeframe of the investigation. It's just a jumble of claims and assertions, the relevance of which is not always obvious. When did Lee make the reported claim, and what is the significance of the "eight minutes"? The statement that "The police appeared to intimidate and influence witnesses" reads like editorial interpretation.
A few points: by "the real murderer" I presume you mean "the murderer". Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after the no traces of blood were found on his shirt? On a more general point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper report; thus, verbatim remarks such as "White folks, I'm a liar" are inappropriate. Likewise, "For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation" is unnecessary detail. I also see no value in the information that "On May 28, the Georgian said that E.F. Holloway, the plant day watchman, believed Conley had strangled Phagan when he was drunk." – a newspaper account of an individual's private opinion. "The police were satisfied with the new story" doesn't seem consistent with their later re-interviewing him for four hours, and extracting yet another affidavit. Why did the Georgian hire a lawyer for Conley?
Chronology is sometimes confusing, e.g. in the "Grand Jury" section you report comments made at the later criminal trial. You should wikilink the term "grand jury" at first mention. The account of the trial makes good reading, but you need to modify the wording "...as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!". I suggest someting like "On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder; according to one eyewitness there were chants of 'Hang the Jew!' from the crowd outside the coutroom". This accords with the source – I don't think the "better source" tag is necessary if you adopt this wording. In the "Commutation" section you should not use caps for "reasonable doubt". I feel in this section, particularly in the fourth paragraph, there is overuse of direct quotation and that paraphrasing could be used. Steve Oney is mentioned here, with no indication of who he was or is (I see he is later described as a "Frank scholar" – can there be such a thing?). I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)
The phrase "new heights of ferocity" is not neutral encyclopedic language. The list of names is intrusive – mention the few notable ones in the text, and cut out the rest. Can you say by what means the body was transported from Georgia to New York for burial? None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?
"a controversial trial" → "the controversial trial". What are "charter members"? By "carrying Phagan's body at the lobby" do you mean "through the lobby"? More precise dating is required in the paragraph dealing with the pardon application: when did the attempt take place? "It denied the pardon in 1983" is imprecise – does not the source give better information?
You should get rid of all the fictional stuff in the "See also" section. A line in the text, stating that the case has been the subject of film and television dramatisations, mentioning titles and years, would be sufficient.
Sorry to have been so long in delivering these. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Brian for your review. I've gone point-by-point through the second part of your review below. I added two dots to points that I wasn't sure about. I'm also going through and adding sources to statements that aren't properly cited, and changing citations that are primary sources (when a secondary is available) and inaccurate citations to more appropriate ones.
Suspicion falls on Frank
Section needs considerable rewriting and reorganisation. There is no date information whatever, so we've no idea when these events were occuring within the timeframe of the investigation. It's just a jumble of claims and assertions, the relevance of which is not always obvious. When did Lee make the reported claim, and what is the significance of the "eight minutes"?
The statement that "The police appeared to intimidate and influence witnesses" reads like editorial interpretation.
James "Jim" Conley
A few points: by "the real murderer" I presume you mean "the murderer".
Why was Conley held in custody for two weeks, after the no traces of blood were found on his shirt?
On a more general point, this is an encyclopedia article, not a newspaper report; thus, verbatim remarks such as "White folks, I'm a liar" are inappropriate. Likewise, "For the next three days, two detectives played good cop/bad cop with Conley, one accusing him of the murder, the other offering him food and consolation" is unnecessary detail. I also see no value in the information that "On May 28, the Georgian said that E.F. Holloway, the plant day watchman, believed Conley had strangled Phagan when he was drunk." – a newspaper account of an individual's private opinion.
"The police were satisfied with the new story" doesn't seem consistent with their later re-interviewing him for four hours, and extracting yet another affidavit.
Why did the Georgian hire a lawyer for Conley?
Hearings, sentencing, and clemency
Chronology is sometimes confusing, e.g. in the "Grand Jury" section you report comments made at the later criminal trial. You should wikilink the term "grand jury" at first mention.
The account of the trial makes good reading, but you need to modify the wording "...as crowds outside the courtroom chanted "Hang the Jew!". I suggest someting like "On August 25, Frank was convicted of murder; according to one eyewitness there were chants of 'Hang the Jew!' from the crowd outside the coutroom". This accords with the source – I don't think the "better source" tag is necessary if you adopt this wording.
In the "Commutation" section you should not use caps for "reasonable doubt".
I feel in this section, particularly in the fourth paragraph, there is overuse of direct quotation and that paraphrasing could be used. Steve Oney is mentioned here, with no indication of who he was or is (I see he is later described as a "Frank scholar" – can there be such a thing?).
I am curious to know why "officials" thought Frank would be more secure in a minimum-security facility (we later learn that his throat was slashed by another inmate)
Lynching
The phrase "new heights of ferocity" is not neutral encyclopedic language.
The list of names is intrusive – mention the few notable ones in the text, and cut out the rest.
Can you say by what means the body was transported from Georgia to New York for burial?
None of the lynchers were identified? Did nobody bother to look at the photographs?
Aftermath
"a controversial trial" → "the controversial trial".
What are "charter members"?
By "carrying Phagan's body at the lobby" do you mean "through the lobby"?
More precise dating is required in the paragraph dealing with the pardon application: when did the attempt take place? "It denied the pardon in 1983" is imprecise – does not the source give better information?
General
You should get rid of all the fictional stuff in the "See also" section. A line in the text, stating that the case has been the subject of film and television dramatisations, mentioning titles and years, would be sufficient.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been slowly obsessively editing the page in near isolation over the last 2 months (some times making errors), I am not expecting it to make Good Article status but recommendations for improvements & contributions, by a fresh pair of editing eyes would be an asset and appreciated.
Thanks,
-- BOD --
22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because omho this article is very good and may be FP. Criticism - that's what I need.Thank you!
Thanks,
Andrew J.Kurbiko (
talk)
01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this up to FA status. Already going through a GA review, the article's topic has been getting a decent amount of notability (promo single release, charts, live performances and critical reception), and I feel every bit of info important to the subject (minor and major) are present in the article, with all references reliable and non-questionable. In addition, I think this article is written great and the images all have fair licenses with correct source information. Any suggestions are welcomed.
Thanks,
和DITOR
E
tails
17:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
The previous peer review only received one comment, so I've re-listed it now because I am nearly submitting this for FAC. I am very enthusiastic about this article and game, so any comments that might help the FAC process a less of a nightmare would be very much appreciated.
Thanks, ☠ Jag uar ☠ 13:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Gah, I meant to get around to reviewing this and ended up forgetting. Here, I need to finish up an essay for Japanese and then I can start reviewing. Sorry about that. Tezero ( talk) 19:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tezero ( talk) 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
I'm listing this article for peer review as it was recently promoted a GA and I'm hoping I can get it to FA real soon. Any feedback is appreciated!
Thanks, Erick ( talk) 22:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
So sorry that I haven't gotten to this sooner, I've been so busy! It appears that the disambiguation and external links tools are down as of this writing, so I will have to come back for those later on. In the meantime, some comments I have:
WikiRedactor ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
John Barrymore was a truly great actor. Possibly the finest thespian America has ever produced, his 1925 Hamlet was a huge success and he was lauded by fellow thesps such as
John Gielgud and
Orson Welles. Behind the mask lay a very different and damaged creature who had been an alcoholic from the age of 14. His drinking, and his destructive behaviour wrecked four marriages, his career and his reputation. He ended his career playing parodies of himself in shoddy B-movies in order to pay off some of his huge debts.
This article has gone through a substantial re-write recently, since which Ssilvers has been very generous with his time and effort in both ensuring it reads well, and is correctly done in American English (a little alien for me to get completely right throughout!) Any and all comments that will aid this article's progress towards FAC standard are welcomed. - SchroCat ( talk) 10:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Very little from me, simply because it's a beautifully constructed article, splendidly sourced and immensely readable. I had already looked at it during work-in-progress, and it was no hardship to read it a second time for PR. Nor will it be one to read it a third time at FAC.
That's my lot. A pleasure to read the article, and a pleasure to review it. Tim riley talk 22:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a trio of minor gripes for the moment; I hope to have more time after this evening, and will add a little more then.
Brianboulton ( talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the first instalment of my main review, covering the first three main sections
To be resumed Brianboulton ( talk) 12:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The remaining sections should be done tomorrow. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see that a great deal of work has gone into this article. I hope my comments and suggestions here are helpful, also the few minor edits I have made to the text. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to one and all: a very useful PR and I've covered most of the comments. There are a couple of more comments that need some in-depth work that I'll work on pre-FAC. Cheers -
SchroCat (
talk)
23:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a perspective from someone who is interested or specializes in meteorology. The storm is almost a year old and I want to at least hopefully get things to a nice article. Generally looking for what could be fixed, changed and etc. Looking to get this article to good article grading after a failed GA review due to missing a few points of
the criteria.
Thanks,
///EuroCar
GT
18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to enhance this historical context and highlight the artistic significance of the opera La Dafne. All citations and content reference reviews are appreciated.
Thanks, LMR0804 ( talk) 05:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, LMR0804. Congratulations on learning to navigate the Wikipedia world!
Structure, Format and Appearance looks good so far. As you move forward, here are a few ideas on how to expand:
Content and Sources
You conflate some information on the two early Dafne attempts. It looks like this page is meant to be the Gagliano, and this one /info/en/?search=Dafne is meant to be the earlier Peri one. Good idea to expand the Gagliano page. It looks like that opera is performed from time to time. Here are some thoughts on citations:
Good luck on your next steps! Mcraab123 ( talk) 19:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I’m sure you have lots of work in store. And I’m intrigued to see where you head with this article. A few minor edits and then broader stuff.
“first full length opera ever composed” – “ever” is redundant
any further elaboration wanted on the synopsis? Seems brief for an entire opera - maybe separated by act/scene or however it's organized.
“late February, 1608.” no comma needed
I'm curious as to why I care about La Dafne. It sounds influential in that it's the first but maybe what led to it's creation would be insightful. Maybe a breif history of opera is important or at least the formative years. If it is the first, what came after and/or was influenced by it?
is there a link for favola in musica? Could you define it? Keithpaulmedelis ( talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi LMR0804, the current lead written by you is passing wrong information, probably because you're confusing Peri's and Gagliano's operas, as also noted by Mcraab123.
Jacopo Peri's Dafne (1598) is the first ever opera; the earliest surviving opera is Euridice (1600), also by Peri. Monteverdi's L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest surviving opera that is still regularly performed today, and Gagliano's La Dafne came only in 1608.
Keithpaulmedelis asked for a definition of favola in musica: it's just Italian for "fable set to music", an attempt by music publishers of that time to explain what that novelty was all about. This expression also appeared in the first edition of L'Orfeo. — capmo ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments:
Brianboulton ( talk) 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Added comments':
Viva-Verdi (
talk)
00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be great to see if it could get to FA quality. Zak has retired since the page was brought to GA. Any extra eyes on grammar would be appreciated.
Thanks, Cptnono ( talk) 12:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC) Nice article! I found something that has no citation in the Retirement section(lol), but I found another one. Why are you putting in citations before the sentence is over? That makes no sense. The article is very good. It grasps a lot of what a reader would ask from an article. That is definitely checked off on the featured article checklist. Out of all, I think with a little scanning over, you could send your article for examination! EMachine03 ( talk) 11:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.
Thanks, Amy E Hughes ( talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Mcraab123. The article has come a long way. Congratulations! Here are my thoughts on work that could still be done:
Good Luck! OrangeZabbo ( talk) 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Marni,
Keep up the great work. Always Jessiechapman ( talk) 16:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work expanding the article. One place you could improve is in capitalization - per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section headers are not supposed to be capitalized (beyond the first word and any proper nouns). Similarly, while Christian should be capitalized, theology should not.
You could also add some more
wikilinks, especially to terms that not all readers might be familiar with (like
Christian theology).
Ian (Wiki Ed) (
talk)
20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to make this article reach Featured status, but it likely needs quite a bit more work and input. Anything you can contribute would be great.
Thanks,
ɱ
(talk)
05:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Known as an "taciturn" character, Mika Häkkinen enjoyed success when he secured the Formula One World Drivers' Championship twice and has also competed in touring car and sports car racing. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive feedback on how this article could be improved as I want to get this article to GA status with the view of an possible featured article nomination.
Thanks, Z105space ( Talk to me!) 22:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
First half:
Bogger (
talk)
07:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (Currently seeking review of
New Zealand national team nomenclature based on the "All Blacks")
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm curious to see how far this article is away from
featured article status. It's passed as a good article nominee recently, and
the reviewer noted that some of the sources weren't "great", but that their usage was fine and non-controversial. As far as I known I've employed every reliable source, both in web and in print, which covers the show significantly—which isn't a whole lot. The series sort of came and went, and so critical reception is sparse (a whole three sentences are devoted to this).
23W
03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, 23W 03:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's some thoughts and suggestions:
The show received multiple accolades, with
Robert Ryan Cory and Chris Tsirgiotis both winning awards for "Outstanding Individual in Animation" at the
64th Primetime Emmy Awards ceremony.
.
23WSlog (Steve Little), a black-furred monster, is likewise blindly loyal, but lacks critical judgement skills—the more hazardous something is, the more likely he will be to follow it.
. Maybe clunkier, but less vague.
23W
21:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Both were produced at
Cartoon Network Studios.
23WHopefully, these ideas and suggestions will come in useful. Honestly, I think the best thing you could do is get someone to peer-edit it.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dave Gallaher was a man of his time. An Irish-born immigrant to New Zealand that went to church every week, played rugby on his weekends, and fought in two wars, he is most famous as captain of the 1905–06 "Original All Blacks" – the first New Zealand national rugby team to tour the British Isles. He was vilified by many in the press for what they considered off-side play, but the team returned having won 35 of their 36 matches. He fought in both the Boer War and First World War, and was killed in Passchendaele in 1917. My aim is
Featured Article status, so any feedback that could help get this article up to that standard would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! –
Shudde
talk
06:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Shudde has specifically requested attention to the military side of the article so I will focus primarily on these aspects during my run-through.
More later — Cliftonian (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, sorry to have taken a while to get back to this. I'll skip down to the military sections
Boer War
First World War
Hope this helps. Sorry for the delay — Cliftonian (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That takes me up to just before the 1905 tour. I will have to resume the review at a future time. Cheers! Reso lute 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, part two, while I await my team's performance in the
102nd Grey Cup...
Overall, article looks to be in fantastic shape. Was a good read, generally easy to handle despite my limited knowledge of rugby. Cheers! Reso lute 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I looked at just the lead section and
did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (
push to talk)
18:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first step towards becoming a featured list candidate. It covers Hendrix's recordings that have been released posthumously and is in addition to the
Jimi Hendrix discography, which is limited to those released during his lifetime. Since the previous PR and
FLC, it has been thoroughly revised and follows the same layout, format, and extensive use of references and inline citations as the recently promoted FL Jimi Hendrix discography. Tendentious editing and ownership of Hendrix articles appear to be a problem of the past;
Jimi Hendrix and
Are You Experienced are Featured Articles and recent Hendrix GAs include "
Purple Haze", "
Hear My Train A Comin'", "
Little Wing", and
Band of Gypsys. I have the resources to make this a featured list and look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make it happen.
Thanks, Ojorojo ( talk) 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Didn't get any comments last time, so maybe I'll try again. Any are appreciated, as always.
Thanks, Tezero ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Tezero. I'm afraid that I don't have time to give this impressive article a full review, but I hope that these few comments will be of some help to you.
I've not had time to get into the second half of the article, but the above points give the flavour of my feelings about this important article. The main point to address is, I think, that of making it a little less daunting to the average reader. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I am preparing to create a Good Topic around the Drakengard series, and since this is the most difficult article of the lot, I need input from other users. Two notes before anyone puts comments down. First: there are bound to be spelling mistakes, as this article is huge and I haven't had the time to go through section by section looking for spelling mistakes. Second: apart from those which are actually referenced, no English voice actors for the characters are available. It is a rather obvious gap in this article's information.
Thanks,
ProtoDrake (
talk)
13:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article for a few months, and I have reached a point where I need to step back and have someone not involved take a look. I ultimately wish to nominate the article for GA. I understand that there are still a few biographical details I need to add (such as his administration), however I would like to have someone's opinion on:
Thanks, ( Manoguru ( talk) 06:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC))
Quick comments from Nikkimaria (not covering the whole article)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I mean to promote it to the featured level.
Thanks, Mhhossein ( talk) 06:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I really know nothing about the subject:
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've worked on a Wikipedia article and would like suggestions on additional content and verify that it is well formatted.
Thanks,
CEGarcia (
talk)
19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get additional review before submitting this as a Featured List Candidate.
Thanks,
★ Bald Zebra ★
talk
10:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
After a lot of referencing and cleanup work, I have hit a bit of a brick wall and could use further input on possible flaws and additional improvements (a few more refs are still incoming, but the content should be OK as is). I would like to get this article atleast to GA. Any kind of feedback is welcome, some special areas of concern are: 1) Is the article structure OK (logical and accessible)? 2) Is the content understandable for a layman? Which points are unclear or confusing? 3) If any reviewer feels like it, minor tweaks to my suboptimal non-native English would be greatly appreciated (the article had a GOCE review a while ago). But of course I'll try to implement any feedback myself as well. Thanks for any suggestions.
GermanJoe (
talk)
14:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments
More comments
More comments
More comments
Remaining open points (moved from Dudley Miles' comments for clarity) GermanJoe ( talk) 11:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It was nominated for at, and then failed- rightly- a GA nomination, but, having taken the advice of the reviewer, hopefully it could pass this time- with the advice of other editors here helping it on its way perhaps? Many thanks from us to you now, and in advance...
Thanks, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 22:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
That's all from me. I enjoyed the whole article very much, and my earlier concerns about adequate citation have been thoroughly addressed. After some heavy cutting of the remains section this article should prosper at GAN, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a lot of work's gone into this. Some thoughts from me:
Thank you to the editors below above. Gillingham certainly seems an odd oversight! Also, re: the tech stuff like straight, curly, single, double quotes etc, is their any editing software available that could make the task of finding and replacing slightly less mind (and eye!) -numbing? Cheers!
Fortuna
Imperatrix Mundi
11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to answer to Mr Riley's question on "The requisite Papal dispensation" – I briefly lost the will to live during this paragraph: do we really need to drag Henry VIII into it? Mention of HVIII's case of first degree consanguinity (now removed, supposedly after your comment) was included because it was a better known case and could help the unexperienced visitor better understand the terms why in HVIII's there was a case for first degree consanguinity and in Richard's and Anne's there was not. Medieval canon law on affinities, siblings created by carnal union in marriage (so Isabel's marriage to George made Anne sister to George and Richard brother to Isabel, but not Anne sister to Richard), etc. is no easy topic and a comparison with a similar better known case might have helped. I would personally recommend it should be reinstated somehow. As for previous direct attribution of statement to Dr Ashdown-Hill in the Succession section, I agree "Dr" could be replaced with "John", just as Hicks is called Michael and not Prof in the previous paragraph. However, by replacing the direct attribution with a generic "It is possible" in that specific context as it has been done supposedly following Mr Riley's comment, it now sounds like that assumption (John of Gloucester being fathered during Richard's first solo expedition) still belongs to Hicks and Horrox and it is simply reported in Ashdown-Hill's book, whereas it is Ashdown-Hill's original research and speculation and I do not think it is fair to have it taken for someone else's work. I would therefore personally recommend it should be reinstated as "John Ashdown-Hill has suggested", or "Historian John Ashdown-Hill has suggested" Thank you for your attention Isananni ( talk) 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tim, I appreciate your understanding, am honoured to tell the truth. I will proceed reinstating the removed entries. Enjoy pedalling Isananni ( talk) 19:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually Deb objections to the validity of Richard's marriage to Anne were indeed raised or there would not have been need to include a "divorce clause" in the 1474 act of Parliament that settled the issue of Richard's mother-in-law's inheritance, as mentioned in the following paragraph. Clarence complained Richard had married Anne by force (ref, report in the Milanese State Papers), probably referring to when he had escorted her to sanctuary in St Martin as an abduction, when consent was essential for a marriage to be valid. It had nothing to do with problems of consanguinity that Clarence shared in the same degree with his own wife. So those objections were indeed raised and documentedly reported and must have been found void and rejected since Richard's marriage was never declared null and the "divorce clause" was never used Isananni ( talk) 10:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Jumping in from the side... I'd argue that it either needs to contain all the works used in the article, or none. My preference (mild in this case) would be for the former, btw. Hchc2009 ( talk) 12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions on current version dated 28 nov 2014
This paragraph was included following user Hchc2009’s suggestions that in its turn followed Tim’s suggestion to add a straightforward attribution in the text to the statement that Richard’s father was a claimant to the throne. In view to improve on conciseness and reader-friendliness, avoid repetitions, etc. my suggestion is to avoid attributions in the text leaving them to the due citation (otherwise all sentences should start with “Kendall, or Hicks, or Ross says, which is not exactly engaging for the average reader) and possibly reword the paragraph with something like: "Richard was born on 2 October 1452[8] at Fotheringhay Castle, the twelfth of the thirteen children of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and Cecily Neville. As a potential claimant to the throne of King Henry VI from birth(ref Dr. Johnson) Richard’s father was the leader of the Yorkist faction that opposed the party supporting the Lancastrian king and played a major role in the first phase of the so called The Wars of the Roses, a period of "three or four decades of political instability and periodic open civil war in the second half of the fifteenth century”(ref Prof. Pollard). At the time of the death of his father and elder brother etc...."
In this section, this mention shifts focus from childhood to adulthood quite strangely and lacks the link to the change in ownership of the estate. My suggestion is to move this mention to the Estates section as follows: Two months later, on 14 July, he gained the Lordships of the strongholds Sheriff Hutton and Middleham in Yorkshire and Penrith in Cumberland, which had belonged to Warwick the Kingmaker. It is possible that the grant of Middleham seconded Richard’s personal wishes(ref. Kendall, Richard III,p 125 “Richard had won his way back to Middleham Castle”). However, any personal attachment he may have felt to Middleham was likely mitigated in later adulthood, as surviving records demonstrate he spent less time there than at Barnard and Pontefract(related present ref by Pollard)
I cannot trace the entry right now, but I remember it speaks of £ 50. The first contract spoke of £ 50, but the actual sum disbursed by HVII to James Keyley in 1495 for Richard’s tomb was £ 10 (ref Rhoda Edwards, The Ricardian, Vol. III, No 50, September 1975, pp 8-9), quite a bargain, a discount under duress? :)
May I suggest to reinstate the referral brakets to the name Anne Neville in the first sentence? I know it’s a repetition of a referral some 2 upscrolls away, but given the relevance in this specific section it may not be redundant and would make for easier browsing for the user, since the section can be accessed separately from the index and the occasional user may not be aware the referral is in another section
The Bibliography section mentions 3 books, while the Further reading section mentions 19. I will crossmatch the different citations to check if any further books (not articles) have missed inclusion in this section, but in the meantime, would it not be the case to merge the 2 sections in 1 single Bibliography section? Should the articles be included or not? Should books that are not mentioned in the citations be included e.g. Josephine Wilkinson's "Richard the young king to be"? The bibliography section lists works by author/title/publisher/isbn id, the Further reading section lists works by title/by author/publisher in brakets/isbn id in brakets - which criteria should we choose to keep consistency? Furthermore, I do not have the ability to work on sections that impact on the index, so I hope someone can help there.
Looking forward to your opinion Isananni ( talk) 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I looked at just the lead section.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to assist with the development of the article and would like to know what needs work.
Thanks, StewdioMACK ( talk) 07:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it a lot recently (it looked like
this last month), and I'm interested in turning it into a Good article in the future —hopefully with your advice.
Thanks!,
Bleff (
talk)
07:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I listed this list last year for peer review, to some feedback. We worked on that feedback, and now the list has all the things needed, with more information, nicer look, some photos, etc. I was thinking of nominating this article for a FL, as from what I can see it has met all the criteria. So I want to know do you have any suggestions to improve the list.
Thanks,
Lucky102 (
talk)
18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take another step on article writing and I'd like to nominate it for
WP:FL.
Thanks, Anton Talk 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is admittedly a behemoth, and I am looking for comments on how it can be more concise, where there is jargon not accessible to a non-baseball fan – ultimately, I would like this to be a GA or even FA at some point, but I have been so invested in this article since the beginning of the season, and need some outside input.
Thanks,
Go
Phightins
!
18:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi all! This is a GA-status article, but a previous request for peer review went unnoticed. I'm interested in getting this article to featured status, now that the topic is relatively dormant. Not to editorialize, but I doubt Mr. Cosby will be endorsing much in the next little while, so the article should remain largely stable.
Thank you in advance, I eagerly await your input,
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have added considerable content and would like to receive constructive criticism of the article.
Thanks,
Geez-oz (
talk)
10:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a few years after failing a GAN, I decided to improve it since it was a large but seemingly redundant article that was little more than a unified summary of several other articles. I would like to think that the direction I took it in could be a model for other "Transport(ation) in" articles, which I realized are for the most part surprisingly brief. It recently failed a FAR and a peer review was suggested. The FAR never got past apparent sourcing issues. It has many sources (and many claims) and some print sources have been added. I could add several more, but I don't want it to seem like a lengthy bibliography of loosely relevant publications was hastily added to make it look more "professional". Input from editors well versed in proper sourcing is sought.
Thanks,
B137 (
talk)
03:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a fascinating rodent, only found in Oregon. I've built this page up from a stub and eventually would like to propose for FA status. I've worked with the maproom to get the distribution map. I also had to do some major leg work to get suitable images, obtained by permission from an ecological non-profit organization in Oregon. Questions that I have include whether to stick with the common name (Camas pocket gopher) or the scientific (Thomomys bulbivorus). Since most of the literature refers to the scientific, that is what I have stuck with. I have done my best to avoid close paraphrasing and stick to WP:MOS, but I am still not the most experienced editor. Copyedits and even comments on how the sections are named and the article is structured would be appreciated.
Thanks, — Gaff ταλκ 22:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am new to writing Wikipedia articles. My classmate and I wrote this article together from scratch. We received advice from a subject matter expert and made some edits as per their suggestions but we could use a Wikipedia expert to make sure that the standards are being followed correctly.
Thanks,
Lnk2128 (
talk)
20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I saw the movie Kahaani with subtitles and was enraptured by Vidya Balan's performance, so I decided to work on the movie's awards list. I think it has reached a good stage now and am aiming it for FL. Hoping to get constructive comments. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)