Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:PR -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews. Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term "archive" for these pages is purely historical). Please see the instructions below and report any problems on the talk page.

Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the Peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback. For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.

Shortcuts: WP:PR WP:REVIEW The path to a featured article Start a new article Develop the article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback ← Apply for featured article status Featured articles

Nomination procedure Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC. For more information on these limits see here. To add a nomination: Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. You may also add a topic parameter to the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template to help reviewers find your article. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are: X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosphy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with "General" topics. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return. Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.

How to remove a request In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may close any listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days, listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity), inappropriate listings, articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, as follows: Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} by {{subst:PR/archive}}. Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1). The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions. Current archive: July 2008

How to respond to a request Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews. The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Please list automated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/July 2008 and link to them from the peer review page of the article: do not include them on the peer review page. Feel free to improve the article yourself. For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.

Related pages
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) Biography peer review Chemistry peer review Comics peer review Film peer review History peer review LGBT studies peer review Military history peer review Novels peer review Scouting peer review Video games peer review	Other peer reviews: Academic peer review External peer review Picture peer review Portal peer review
Purge server cache	edit guidelines

Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived. The following are peer review requests at least three days old that have received no feedback: July 7 • Anstey Hill Recreation Park • New media • Asthma • Herbert Chapman • Lightning protection system • Go Man Go July 6 • Ukraine • Yasukuni Shrine • Fethullah Gülen July 5 • List of tallest statues in the United States • Club Penguin • Laie Hawaii Temple July 4 • Tudor period • The Daily Show • L'Opéra of the Palace of Versailles • Peter Jones (missionary) • Hyde Road If you review one of these articles, please add {{doing}} to the peer review before your edits, and remove it from this list when done. (update list)

Arts

The Trial of a Time Lord

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want suggestions on how to improve the prose; I feel this is the best place for it, as the LOCE backlog is huge.

Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 July 2008, 22:04 UTC)

---

Night Out

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to FA status. It is currently a good article, what should I do to give a realistic chance at being featured?

Thanks, Mr.crabby (Talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 8 July 2008, 13:00 UTC)

---

Dwight Schrute

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get to FA, but need to make it perfect first.

Thanks, RedThunder 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, it needs some more work to get up to FA standards. A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that Palpatine, Troy McClure and Jabba the Hutt are all FAs about fictional characters. There may be more good model FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
• The lead needs to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (such as his World Anime Expo T-shirt). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the Bobblehead Doll is not mentioned in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs a few more references, for example Dwight craves authority over others and relishes any minor task that Michael or anyone else gives him. Though Dwight acts like a know-it-all, he is actually quite gullible and naïve. For this reason, he is easily tricked and tormented by his desk-mate and fellow salesman Jim Halpert. Dwight speaks in a halting, dramatic manner, even in casual conversations. is uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• BIggest problem I see is that the article is mostly presented from an in universe perspective and needs to be presented from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. Look at the model articles and see how they deal with the character - how do the creators of the show talk about Schrute? What has the critical reception been to him as a character? Besides the VP joke, what other popular culture references are there to him? See WP:WEIGHT Similarly the sources are nearly all from the Office - article needs more independent third-party sources.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 7 July 2008, 21:21 UTC)

---

Control (Janet Jackson album)

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I am working towards passing both GA and FA nomination. Any editors who are music-savvy are encouraged to comment or give criticism. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Sillyfolkboy

• A few minor points - Some references are missing access dates for their links, though i'm not sure how things stand in terms of web links to google books and library refs. Ref 30 should say 'Retrieved on' and have the 2008-07-05 date to stick with the same format.
  • Links for books never have access dates. Library ref such as periodicals, newspapers and journals don't either, unless you are sourcing them directly from a website. see wikipedia:citation_templates. I forgot to place ref 30 in citation format which I'll fix shortly. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• The "Nasty" sample should be reduced to 24 secs as song samples should be no more than 10% of the whole track (see WP:Music Samples).
  • since the entire track is 4:30 wouldn't 10% be around 40 seconds? In which case under anything under 30 seconds would be correct. I'm horrible at math so I may be wrong. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed it is bad math! 4:30 is 270 seconds. So: 10% = 27 seconds. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Are there no more credits for the recording/production crew? All but two seem to be performers, though allmusic doesn't give us any more info.
  • credits are correct. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• The ALL BOLD AND ALL CAPITALS approach in the awards section seems just wrong. If there a better to represent this info (prose/table)?
  • I'm probably going to delete that until I find more sources. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed, citations should be easy for awards - if you can't find them then they're pretty dubious and shouldn't stay. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually music awards are some of the hardest things to track down, esp for Billboard. Jackson certainly won each of them, but most current source simply state she won "x" amount from "x" source without giving specifics. I've even found sources from 1986, such as the ones stated in the Legacy section of the article and her main biography article that still only name how many awards she won without listing them individually. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Should gold and platinum really be italicised in the footnotes?Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe the 'work' section is used in the sense of literary work, not in the gold/platinum sense. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The citation template automatically does that, though I'm not sure "gold and platinum" is the correct sport for the "work" value of the template. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll remove them. Thanks for the input. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      

(Peer review added on Wednesday 2 July 2008, 12:31 UTC)

---

List of Mozart's operas

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review. It is a List, which has been prepared as a concise summary of Mozart's operas, providing an at-a-glance overview of the whole series of works. It has multiple links to enable detailed further investigation, and a brief, referenced text to give some general backgound information about the operas. Comments are requested on the format and overall quality of the list, on the use of footnotes, and on any other relevant aspect. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from MeegsC

• For us philistines(!), you should explain what a "Köchel number" is.
  • An explanatory footnote, with links, has been added. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• One of the dates (for K.344) is not centred.
  • Centred now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• You might ask a copy editor for a read-through. For example, in the sentence In general the list follows the sequence in which the operas were written, there should be a comma after general.
  • Someone has done/is doing some copyedits, and has inserted your comma. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Items in the "Sources" section should be put into a standard format (citation or cite book).
  • Cite book is a choice of format, not a requisite, per WP:Citing sources. I prefer not to use it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like further comments, please ask here! MeegsC | Talk 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Anything more you have to add would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A few more questions/comments:

• Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's operas comprise 22 musical dramas in a variety of genres. Dramas? Some of the linked articles call their subjects comedies...

Surely the word drama is used here in the sense of a story enacted on a stage (irrespective of whether it is happy or tragic, serious or humorous). It's a standard usage. --Kleinzach 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I accept that. On a separate note, I think that opening sentence is a bit stilted. "...operas comprise 22 musical dramas... " How about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed 22 operas in a variety of genres.

• They range from the small-scale, derivative works of his juvenile years ... Juvenile years sounds odd to the ear. Is youth appropriate? (I realize that, as a child prodigy, he may well have reached maturity while still in his youth.)

Other words would be equally OK. But "juvenilia" is the accepted word for artistes' early work, so my choice seems appropriate.Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, but on reflection 'juvenile years' is different from 'juvenilia' or 'juvenile works'. --Kleinzach 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's save a word and say "youth". Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• ...have never been out of the repetory. Whose repertory? I'm assuming the world's, but you might want to be more precise here.

Agreed. We could be more precise . . . "the repertory of the world's opera houses."? --Kleinzach 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• A significant feature of Mozart's later work are... Verb needs to be in agreement, which will probably mean a rewording of this sentence...

I have reworded the start of this para, to give it a better justification for being here. There is a view that it should not be included in a list article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, you directly quote several writers without attributing them in the text (though you've cited each one thoroughly). I like how you've done the third paragraph, where you indicate who said the quoted things. Can you do that here too, or put things into your own words so you're not using so many direct quotes? Not a deal-breaker, more a bit of a pet peeve. : )

MeegsC | Talk 09:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On the last point, I've introduced Cairns and Kenyon into the paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

What an important list! Thanks for putting this together! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• I'm wondering if the paragraph on female characters is necessary in the lead. Since this is a list article, only the briefest overview is required. (This is not the article on Mozart's operas, after all.) That paragraph suggests much more detail than the article goes into.
  • I wanted to illustrate a consistency in the operas, a unifying theme or factor relevant to the whole body of work, and I thought that Mozart's development of his female characters was the best - and the best-referenced - example of this. I will invite comment from other editors interested in the list. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• The first time a scholar or critic is named, he or she needs to be identified as a musicologist or something. Give the reader a reason to trust the person's opinion.
  • This is now done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm curious why the seven-year old portrait was chosen - why not an older Mozart? Mozart wrote the bulk of his operas when he was older, did he not?
  • Yes, you're right, the portrait is inappropriate. I've changed it for the familiar della Croce detail
• Shouldn't the titles of the operas be italicized in the list?
  • Yes, they should be, and now are.
• It seems strange to write "3 soprano, 2 tenor" rather than "3 sopranos, 2 tenors" - is this typical opera lingo?
  • It's not opera lingo, but these descriptions refer to voice types, not to people, i.e. are being used in the adjectival rather than the noun sense (3 soprano voices, 2 tenor voices, etc.)
• It would be good if the "Sources" were in a standard reference style, such as MLA, APA, or Chicago. I see the above reviewer recommended templates. I dislike the templates, too, but citing sources in a standard style is helpful to readers. WP:Citing sources has links at the bottom of the page to pages on these standard styles, if you don't want to use the templates.
  • I've used the same Sources format here that I have used in numerous featured articles, and which is widely used elsewhere in Wikipedia. In my view, this is a "standard" style provided it is used with complete consistency; I'm not sure why this form is less helpful to readers than others, but I'm prepared to be told. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia should not invent its own style. I do research nearly every day. It is confusing to come to a reference list and see things arranged in a foreign manner. I saw the punctuation in your list and went "what?" (by the way, the punctuation is not even consistent in the list itself). It also gives the impression that Wikipedia does not know what it is doing when it comes to references. Part of helping Wikipedia gain legitimacy is showing the outside world that we understand how referencing works. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I note what you say, and I respect this viewpoint. However, I do research, too. I see many scholarly bibliographies, outside Wikipedia, formatted in the manner I have used. I am looking at one right now. I am also looking at the bibliography in Neal Zaslaw's book, which is laid out in a non-standard fashion but doesn't cause me confusion. Honestly, I don't think it's a problem, but I will give the matter further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why are there two "Further reading" sources? Considering all that has been written on Mozart's operas, this tiny selection seems rather arbitrary. I would delete this section and only list the sources you have used or create a real bibliography, listing all of the major works on Mozart's operas.
  • I agree that the list is too short. While it would be impractical to list all the major works, a decent listing of half a dozen is certainly possible, and I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

May I thank you for these comments, and also for the very useful copyedits, which have certainly improved the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Kleinzach

I've removed the 'Further Reading' heading leaving 'Selected bibliography' - I don't think both are needed, though by all mean switch them if you prefer the other one. The list looks excellent now. The only suggestion I have would be to announce the peer review on the Composers Project as they have some editors working intensively on Mozart who don't take part in the opera Project (for example Opus33). --Kleinzach 05:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Opus33

Charles Rosen's The Classical Style has quite a bit of commentary on the operas in general and might be a good reference source here. Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a listed source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 1 July 2008, 20:10 UTC)

---

List of characters in Holby City

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope eventually to nominate it for WP:Featured List status, and would like advice on how to improve it with this in mind. The article has undergone major change over the past couple of months, from [1] to as it stands at present, and I welcome suggestions on how to advance and refine it further. Many thanks, Frickative 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
• I am pretty sure the lead image needs a credit / source for each of the individual images in it - see the lead image in Radiohead for an example, here: Image:Radiohead.jpg
• Provide context for the reader - Holby City is not linked in the lead and the link to Casualty is a dab. See WP:PCR
• References need to all be reliable (imdb is not considered to meet WP:RS) and need to provide the same information consistenly - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: You ... said that the lead needs to be more "accessible and and inviting", how exactly do we do that to improve the article? ^_^ steveking89 22:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Accesible and inviting are both taken from the introduction to WP:LEAD, by which this should be a two or three paragraph lead - it is now just one paragraph and needs to be expanded.
• I have never seen this show or heard of it before I did the review. The lead should tell me enough about the show and the cast members that I want to read the article. From reading about Holby City and Casualty (TV series) (neither of these exact links was in the lead when I reviewed this initially) I have some idea of what is going on, but I would expect the lead would give some brief history of the program. Mention when it started, that it is a spin off of Casualty, that characters and plots will sometimes crossover, and what it focuses on. I also find it very interesting that there are none of the original cast members left on the show - why such turnover?
• Model articles are useful for ideas and examples to follow. I note that List of cast members of The Simpsons, List of Harry Potter films cast members, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, and List of Survivor contestants are all FLs and may be useful models.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the article may need fewer sections / headers too.
• What about the show and characters in it do you find interesting? Can that be worked into the lead somehow to draw the reader in?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 June 2008, 22:09 UTC)

---

Batman Begins

Previous peer review

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a Good Article and I want to get it up to Featured status. The previous peer review can be found here. Any feedback and suggestions on improving it for FA will be very much appreciated

Thanks, Greg Jones II 20:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Batmobile, Batsuit, and Soundtrack are not in the lead, for example.
• Article needs references in a few more places - there is at least one fact tag and the last eight entries in Cast are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow Superman (film series) is a FA and may offer some ideas. Other FA film articles are at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media
• Could the Design and SPecial effects sections be combined? Effects is quite short now

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 June 2008, 20:23 UTC)

---

Shojo Beat

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get an idea of where the article stands. I have it tagged for copyediting, but are there any other major issues? Anything else that may need to be added/expanded on? How is the format/organization? There really isn't a good MoS for magazines, so sort of went with what seemed appropriate/natural and by looking at some GA/FA magazine articles and adapting to this particular type of publication. Goal after PR is a GA nom.

Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to beef up the "History" section with details, as it's a bit sparse. As usual, any tidbit of how the magazine was received helps. When I was thinking about the items an article like this would have, my immediate train of thought was: "History/development/production", "Features", "Reception/awards/cultural impact", which the article has it stands, but feel free to expand as you see fit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, on second thought, it's not that sparse, but more stuff wouldn't hurt. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yah, I am finding the reception info is some of the hardest stuff to find for magazines. They aren't reviewed very much, so mostly just circulation numbers. I think all the verifiable history is there, but will double check :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question for reviewers: are sources on each start and end of series needed in the table, or is it considered to be implicitly sourced to the magazine issues listed without the need for an inline citation? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 30 June 2008, 09:02 UTC)

---

Superman Returns

Previous peer review

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see it get to at the least Good Article status, and preferably FA at last. There was a previous Peer Review, but that was all the way back in 2006 and the article is much improved. Thanks, rootology (T) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• The plot section seems overly long and detailed to me. The article needs to makesure it is written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
• Article needs more references - the last two paragraphs of Production and last three of Visual effects have zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Information in refs given is not complete - for exampe, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Lead is too short for WP:LEAD and does not summarize the whole article. The soundtrack and sequel are two headers not in the lead.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 29 June 2008, 18:14 UTC)

---

Strawberry Fields Forever

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's an important Beatles song, and definitely needs to be have a good standing on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• Expand the lead per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Biggest problem is lack of references - needed for GA and especially for FA. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • done
• Make sure all of the sources meet WP:RS What makes Refs 19 or 21 reliable sources?
  • Refs 19 and 21 removed, but I don't know about the rest.
• The "References" section needs to be used as inline cites and the External link (Pollack) is already cited as a note.
  • done All the References are already used in in-line citations, and the external link has been removed.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but that's nothing that I didn't already know. I would appreciate it if you could go into further detail. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 02:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were me, I would fix the things I know are wrong first, then ask for feedback, but whatever floats your boat ;-). Here are some more things I noticed:

• Provide context for the reader - for example, in the Background and composition section, mention why Penny Lane is important too, perhaps something like Lennon's "Strawberry Fields Forever" and McCartney's "Penny Lane", which would become both A sides of thesingle, shared the theme of nostalgia for their childhood in Liverpool. See WP:PCR
• WP:QUOTE says quotes less than four lines long should be in the text, not set off as block quotes.
• It always helps to have a clear narrative line - tell a story. For example the recording section is full of interesting stuff, but jumps around - we learn about takes, then editing them together, then go back to the Mellotron. I would try to look at things in some order, perhaps chronological.
  • Working, I'm using Google Books to work on the Recording section, but I usually can only find one page of info (it's only a preview, remember). I'll go to the library as soon as possible, but it's a holiday in the states (Fourth of July), and the library is closed. However, if anyone wants to help, a great source is The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver Through the Anthology, which has a lot of info. Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 17:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps, not sure what else to say (especially since you know it all already ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it's a good thing if the peer review is short: there's not a lot to do. :) Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 16:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also true that once the other major problems are addressed, then more minor things can be polished - sort of like if you are in a car wreck, you don't worry if you need a hair cut before calling the ambulance ;-) If a ref is remopved or changed, the text might change too - once the refs are fixed, drop me a line on my talk page and I will be glad to be more nit-picky Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 28 June 2008, 22:06 UTC)

---

Tohru Honda

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what additional work may be needed before nominating it as a GAC. I've attempted to follow the guidelines for a character article at WP:MOS-AM. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a brief summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Development is not there now, as one example.
• Provide context for the reader - an interested reader will not necessarily know who Rin and Hanajima are in Several other characters, including Kyo,[11] Rin,[12] and Hanajima,[13] tell her she needs to look out for her own interests and not shoulder everyone else's burdens. for example. Or why is she living in a tent when she has a mother and grandfather?
• Make sure the article is written from an out-of-universe perspective, see WP:IN-U. The plot section seems to be overly long and detailed, while reception needs to be expanded.
• Per MOS:QUOTE and WP:PUNC the punctuation usually comes outside of quotes, so change However while "Tohru is notorious in the series for being happy and cheerful even in times of great taxation,"[59]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's helpful -- thanks. (And a "darn it" to myself, as I keep forgetting that Wikipedia interprets logical quotation differently than the house style I'm used to.) One thing, though: could you expand some more on the out-of-universe language -- what passages were you particularly noticing as a concern? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And I'll see what I can do to compress the plot, now that I have some distance. However, she is the protagonist of a long and complicated series. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think part of it is that the lead has plot but not much development or reception, and the reception section is fairly short. This makes an already long plot section seem even longer. I read the MOS guide on anime article - linked in the talk page - and the Fruits Basket article. The plot there is muc shorter and may give some ideas. The reception section includes some quotes that mention Tohru, such as The real strength of Natsuki Takaya's artwork isn't that that it looks good—though it definitely does, from its beautiful characters to the intricately rendered textures of their clothing—but how well it communicates mood and emotions. Not content to rely on facial expressions, though she does them well, Takaya is particularly apt at using shading and shadows to indicate character's mental states... The details of character's emotions—the disparity between Tohru's private emotions and her public front, the punishing intensity of Kyo's feelings for Tohru—are not only discernable but tangible, all without a word being spoken. —Carl Kimlinger, Anime News Network[52] Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not happy with how I handled the text of the Reception section as it is -- maybe it's time to scratch it and start over. As for the Development, I know of some additional material that can be used (the DVD commentaries) but I haven't been able to access it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 27 June 2008, 20:59 UTC)

---

June Anderson

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually have this article listed as a good article. Comments related towards getting this article to that place would be appriciated.

Thanks, Nrswanson (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The following, in my view, are the main issues:-

• Lack of images: I know the problem with living artistes, but other opera singer articles have found a way round – for example, see Kathleen Battle, Jose Carreras, Placido Domingo. A fair use rationale could be tried on one of the June Anderson portraits on Google Images, or do what the Domingo articles editors apparently did, and get permission from the image’s owner. What I would recommend, first off, is contact User:Elcobbola, who has great expertise in the use of images. I nearly always seek his advice, and always accept it.

• Lead: The lead needs to be rewritten and extended to form a concise overview of the entire article, as required by WP:Lead. At the moment, it's a bit of a motley collection of facts, in no particular order (e.g. why mention the 2008 award before the 2007 award?)

• Article structure: The article isn't really structured at present, being a sequence of main sections undifferentiated in levels. My suggestion as to a possibly better structure is:-
  • 1. Early life: this section should include most of what is at present in the "Education and vocal training" section, but considerably expanded to include information essential in a biographical article such as parents’ names, details of any siblings, date of entry to Yale, date of graduation, and dates of study with Leonard.

• • 2. Opera debut: The reader will want to know how she moved from being a near penniless, unsuccessful auditioner to being the Queen of the Night at the NYCO. How did she land the part? There is an interesting story to be told, and it should be told here. The rest of this section can cover her years at NYCO as she gradually established herself.

• • 3. Operatic Career: We need to get some sense of the progress of her career during the last 30 years, and we don’t really get this from content which, at present, rather over-concentrates on listing roles performed and venues. For example, it would be interesting to know why she moved into the bel canto roles in the early 1980s? Who, or what, were the greatest influences on her career, that led her to make the decisions that she did? These are issues worthy of discussion. I am not sure, either, that subdividing her career into decade sections (1980s, 1990s, 2000s) is the best idea - it's a bit flat and formulaic. Would it be possible to divide the Operatic career section perhaps along lines such as:-
    • 3.1 Bel canto roles
    • 3.2 Broadening the repertoire
    • 3.3 Later career
    • 3.4 Future plans (I’m sure that better headings than these rough suggestions could be developed, with a bit of thought)

• • 4. Private life. Did she marry? If so, who to? Did she have children (how many?) – these are details essential to any biog. article. A short section, probably at the end since she is still living, should provide this information

• • 5. Notable recordings formats: A standard, regular format for should be used for each entry. At present, years are sometimes bracketed, sometimes not; LONDON (the record label) is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not; "conducted by" is sometimes shortened to "cond." Etc., etc. As a result, the section looks untidy; it would look much better for being regular. I also wonder quite so many examples are necessary.

• Referencing: the article is unevenly cited, with sometimes lengthy passages without citations. I noticed this particularly between refs [14] and [15], and between [20] and [21]. I also noticed that the formats of the references are almost all incorrect. On-line sources (the majority) should be in {{cite web}} format. Book references must be to pages or short page ranges, not to whole books, with the title, author, publisher, year of publication, location of publication, and ISBN number all given. For magazine or newspaper articles the article name, author and exact date of issue must be given. See Wikipedia:citing sources for further guidance.

• WP:MOS violations. I haven’t done a full check, but dates are generally unlinked; small ordinals like 5th should be written as fifth; there should be no spaces before references ([11] is one I saw). You don’t seem to have employed non-breaking spaces.

• Prose: I haven’t done a detailed prose check. On my read-through it seemed OK.

To summarise, a fair amount of work, in my view, is needed before the article looks ready for GAN or FAC, but it’s a decent start. I hope this helps.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 26 June 2008, 13:40 UTC)

---

Meshuggah

Article () • Article talk () • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to pass the featured article criteria even before I add it to featured article nominations. So I thank everybody who gives me some suggestions. I just want to know what needs to be improved so that the article passes the FA criteria. Thanks a lot, Cheers :)