Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Caution 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

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback ←
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.

Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.

Note. You may change a topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are:

X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosophy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with "General" topics.

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:

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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.

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/August 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) Other peer reviews:
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:


August 26 • Smithfield, London • Battery (electricity)
August 25 • British National Party
August 24 • List of characters in The Simpsons • The Other Woman (Lost)
August 22 • The Boys from Baghdad High • Burger King legal issues
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)

Contents

Current peer reviews

Zinfandel

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

I've listed Zinfandel for peer review because I'd like to elevate it to Good Article status, it has already been nominated, but nobody has reviewed it yet, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to get a quick peer review first. In particular, I am interested in the automated script looking it over for cleanup issues that I may have missed.

Thanks, ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 29 August 2008, 17:42 UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics

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

I've listed this article for peer review because this article had failed GAN last time. Suggestions to elevate its status to GA will be very much helpful.

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Friday 29 August 2008, 12:47 UTC)

Homosexuality in speculative fiction

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… In the last few months it has had a complete overhaul. It is now: 1. Broad in coverage (broader than any of the print encylopedias used as sources)
2. Fully wikified
3. Referenced.
4. Well written (in my own opinion!)
5. Has free images.

So i'm hoping to submit for GAR soon. As i've written almost all of it alone, i want outside input, especially on the writing and overall flow.

Thanks, Yobmod (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2008, 11:23 UTC)

List of British monarchs

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to the FL standards. What is missing?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Thursday 28 August 2008, 05:31 UTC)

Harry Potter

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on the article for some time now with other editors and was wondering if anything else would be required before I bring it up for an FAC. Any comments, good or bad would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance, The Helpful One (Review) 23:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2008, 23:36 UTC)

Utah State Route 68

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for any potential feedback before listing this article on WP:FAC.

Thanks, Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from closed ACR) -

  • More comments - Alright, don't shoot me for these -
    • No refs in the lead.
    • That said, some of the stuff in there should be moved to their respective sections (the AADT and traffic stuff, and the construction info. Those should be moved to the RD and history, respectively)
      • True, can you think of anything to add to the lead then, it does need a 2nd paragraph if you want to move that stuff --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see how the I-215 image pertains to this article; sure, it's the Redwood Road exit, but that's about it. We don't see any part of that road; all we get is a sign with the SR-68 shield.
    • Refs are always, always past the punctuation mark. I'll fix this last one. CL — 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • One more thing; do we need the sub-headers in the RD? Two of them only have one paragraph in them. I find em unnecessary, but that's just me - CL — 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • This was suggested in IRC when the ACR was still active --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2008, 14:32 UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to be a featured one, not just a good one. Thanks, Hadrianos1990 (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2008, 10:17 UTC)

Royal Tunbridge Wells

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…

I recently nominated it for Good Article status and was advised by the GA reviewer (when it failed to meet the GA criteria) that it might benefit from a Peer Review. I have made all the improvements and amendments requested as part of the GA review, so I would now like to know what areas need further work before it can be nominated as a Good Article.

Thanks, Sjc196 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2008, 09:14 UTC)

Yttrium

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


I've listed this article for peer review just before FAC to verify what MOS and c/e issues might exist, and weather the language used is accessible enough for the general audience. Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sjc196 comments:

  • I have gone through and done some minor copy editing to the language.
  • The citations need to be sorted out to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. There is a Wikipedia reference generator tool that can help with this. Also, when citing a reference for the second time you need the "/" in the syntax, e.g. ref name="XYZ"/.
  • Some citations are needed in the Lead (as per Wikipedia:LEAD), particularly where the lung disease claim is made.
  • I think the paragraph in the History section beginning "In 1987, a compound of Yttrium..." is superfluous, as it is covered (in more detail) in the "Medical and exotic" Applications section.
  • "It can appear to gain a slight pink luster on exposure to light" - vague. Either it does or it does not. NB As far as I can see, the citation you provide for this statement (Hammond) does not mention this.
  • "Lunar rock samples collected during the Apollo program have a relatively high yttrium content" - this is vague, "relatively high" should be quantified.
  • Why are the yttrium-halogen and yttrium sulfide, antimonide and arsenide compounds notable? Currently they are simply mentioned almost in passing.
  • "A few yttrium compunds have the oxidation state +2 and +1" - this is a little vague ("a few"), and seems tacked-on. Some examples, and information about how/why they are interesting, could be useful.
  • "Yttrium complexes were the first examples of a d0 metallacarborane incorporating an η7-carboranyl ligand" - I don't know how accessible this will be for the layperson. It could perhaps benefit from a link to a relevant Wikipedia article about the chemistry involved, to give readers some background...?
  • I assume that your reference 33 (Audi) verifies all of the claims made in the first two paragraphs of the Isotopes section (e.g. numbers of artificial isotopes) - I can only see the abstract from the hyperlink.
  • The "Consumer" subheading in the Applications section sounds odd.
  • "Yttrium iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3Fe5O12 and Y3Al5O12) have important magnetic properties" - why are they important?
  • "This superconductor operated at 93 K, notable because this is above liquid nitrogen's boiling point (77.1 K)" - why is it notable that it operates above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen?
  • In general there is quite a lot of information that is simply provided as short, almost stand-alone sentences, e.g. "A few yttrium compunds have the oxidation state +2 and +1" and "YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer". I think these sentences would benefit - as would the article - from a little more context.

I hope that's helpful! If you need me to clarify any of the points I've made, just let me know via my talk page. Sjc196 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not ready for FAC yet per above and per my comments at Talk:Yttrium#FAC. Stone also wants to put some finishing touches first as well. --mav (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Wednesday 27 August 2008, 01:07 UTC)

Battery (electricity)

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


I have worked on this for a while and am planning to nominate it for GA as soon as I've fixed all the problems. In particular:

  • How does the lead look? How could I improve it?
  • Before, I thought "Classification of batteries" (now called "Types of batteries") was too long, so I moved a lot of the content to List of battery types. How is the current section ("Types of batteries")?
  • How is the organization? Does the article cover all major aspects? Any trivial info that should be removed?

Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 August 2008, 19:05 UTC)

Smithfield, London

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


I've listed this article for peer review. It recently got GA status and has been considerably improved lately. Feedback on how to further improve this towards FA status would be welcome.

Thanks, DarTar (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Tuesday 26 August 2008, 12:23 UTC)

StarCraft II

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve the article. Thanks, Gary King (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

Yeah, generally seems a good coverage of what's known so far.

  • Are the fair use screenshots necessary?
    Logo is. Terran briefing system is, as it's discussed in the same paragraph. We've got one screenshot showing Terran and one showing Zerg, so one could argue that they both show two of the three major races of the game, which is pretty important. If we had a screenshot for Protoss units in action then we'd add that, too. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I dislike the use of brackets in the second paragraph of Gameplay. Can you weave that stuff out of brackets and into sentences?
  • I suppose this can be done when the game is released... but the Gameplay section is currently just a comparison to the original (at least for the first part), where it really should just explain gameplay as if talking to a newbie.
  • "and its expansion, Brood War," - wlink? (and then delink next section?)

But yeah, generally looks good... I didn't find much! Good work. —Giggy 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The rest is done, except for Gameplay comparisons. A lot of it is still "Blizzard says..." and then they draw comparisons themselves, so the article tries to quote them as accurately as possible on that. The entire article will change substantially once the game is actually released. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2008, 22:34 UTC)

British National Party

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it is in the midst of major POV editing and very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article especially where POV and references are concerned.

Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2008, 20:39 UTC)

Scott Carson

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


I've listed this article for peer review because Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs) has done some really good work on this article, and I myself have also contributed, although to a lesser extent. We think the article is now getting close to Good Article quality and would welcome comments with that goal in mind, but any advice that would improve the article generally would be excellent. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on how we should cover the Croatia game, without overplaying or underplaying its significance, and what quotes (if any) we might use around it. Cheers, Jameboy (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs)

Carson did not make any appearances for Leeds in the 2004–05 season,[11] and although Leeds were keen to retain Carson,[12] he rejected offers of a new contract and with his contract due to expire in the summer of 2004, he was sold to Liverpool in January 2005 for a transfer fee of £750,000.[13][14]
This sentence is too long and the bit about his contract expiring in 2004 and being sold in 2005 is apparently contradictory. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
He returned to Liverpool at the end of the season and in July 2006, extended his contract with Liverpool by two years, keeping him at the club until 2011.[22]
This needs to be changed. Even though he signed a contract that was due to last until 2011, he was sold in 2008. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Carson did not want to sit on the substitute bench at Liverpool for another season while Liverpool wanted him to gain experience and return to compete with Jose Reina for a place in the first-team in the 2007–08 season,[23] and in August 2006, Carson joined Charlton Athletic on loan for the 2006–07 season,[24] after Charlton failed in a bid for Norwich City goalkeeper Robert Green.[25]
This sentence needs to be broken up. One way of fixing it is to remove the first part, because I doubt if there is evidence that Carson wanted to play elsewhere at that point. The fact Liverpool wanted him to gain experience is evidenced by the fact he was loaned out. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
he played in all but three of Villa's 38 league matches, keeping 11 clean sheets, during the 2007–08 season.[30][31]
From memory, I think two of the games he missed were due to Villa not being able to use him against Liverpool due to the contract between the two clubs. This may be worth mentioning. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
A week later, he made his competitive debut in a crucial match against Croatia, which England lost 3–2 and were eliminated from Euro 2008, with Carson being held particularly culpable for the first goal.[46]
Maybe I'm biased, but I think the way that goal was conceded by Carson is worth mentioning. "Shot from 25-30 yards by Niko Kranjčar that was straight at Carson, who could only spill the ball into the net". Or something like that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

Lead
Career
  • "He played nine games, keeping five clean sheets and helping Wednesday to 18 points, and was a key factor in helping Wednesday to escape relegation." I had to read this a couple of times to understand it. I suggest a re-word after points.
  • "Carson did not want to sit on the substitute bench at Liverpool for another season while Liverpool wanted him to gain experience and return to compete with Jose Reina for a place in the first-team in the 2007–08 season,[23] and in August 2006, Carson joined Charlton Athletic on loan for the 2006–07 season,[24] after Charlton failed in a bid for Norwich City goalkeeper Robert Green." A long sentence. I suggest breaking it up.
  • "He made 38 appearances and was in outstanding form" POV; needs a reference.
  • "Charlton Supporters' Club" Is this their name or is it "Charlton Athletic Supporters' Club"?
  • Why did he finally leave Liverpool? Was it his choice or Benitez's?
International
  • "Carson was first called up to the England Under-21 squad in October 2003, a month after his 18th birthday, for the UEFA Under-21 Championship 2004 qualifier against Turkey, despite having played only four games for England at other levels and having not yet made his competitive debut for Leeds United's first team,[4] and made his under-21 debut four months later in a 3–2 win for England against the Netherlands in February 2004." Another long sentence.
  • "with Carson being held particularly culpable for the first goal." I would say why he was culpable.

Seems pretty close to GA standard, if not already there. Peanut4 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2008, 20:28 UTC)

Judgment Day (2005)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Background
    • There must be sentence missing. Why was Mysterio disqualified?
    • How did JBL win the FF4?
    • Scott Garland needed parenthesis.
    • Explain what a Handicap match is.
    • Bad guy > villain, sounds more professional.
  • Preliminary matches
    • Last names can be used after the full ring name is mentioned. Having them there again after the first time is unnecessary clutter.
    • Explain Angle slam.

The rest of it looks fine to me.

Done and thank you for the comments. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2008, 14:33 UTC)

Czech Republic national football team

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have done a little bit of work on this article recently, and I would appreciate other peoples views on what would be the ideal material to add to the article :)

Thanks, // Finns 08:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

  • The lead needs to be alot longer, one sentence is not enough, try to include little bits from all the sections, and summarise the article
  • "while being part of Austria-Hungary," change while to whilst
  • "4-1" scorelines should use en dashes
  • Is there any reason why the Malta match is the only mentioned during the Euro 6 qualifying campaign?
    • Note - this is because this was the Czechs first competitive match - Netherlands are also mentioned // Finns 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "unprecedented success" bit POV I would change that
  • "They did, however easily qualify for Euro 2000, winning all 10 of their group games, conceding just 5 goals. The team failed to produce at the finals though, producing just one win, and crashing out in the group stage." quite a few POV statements like "crashing out" easily qualify" these need to be rectified. Also 5 should be written out, this is a general for numbers that are not double digits or greater
  • The history section in general is poor in my opinion and needs to be greatly expanded I would look at Croatia national football team for ideas on this.
  • There are no references either which should be added for anything that can be contested, i.e. qualifying easily for euro 2000
  • The tournament records section could do with being split into Euro and world cup and needs a few sentences to introduce the relevant tables
  • A statistics section would be helpful, as would a record section
  • Supporters and media section as well would be handy

Overall a lot of improvement is needed to this article good luck NapHit (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want an idea of what I mean look at Croatia national football team for ideas on the structure and sections you should have NapHit (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2008, 08:25 UTC)

Rampton Secure Hospital

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


I've listed this article for peer review because in places it is written as something appraching a personal account without author attribution or sources listed.

Thanks, Drudge dread (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: The article, with three minor exceptions, completely lacks sourcing, and its information is therefore not verifiable. It violates one of Wikipedia's three core principles. Please see WP:V. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Monday 25 August 2008, 01:01 UTC)

The Other Woman (Lost)

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


This GA was at FAC recently and suffered from a lack of comments. The nomination was archived with two votes: one neutral who felt that the article could use another copyedit and one oppose who offered to strike his vote if no one supported his view on the image, which no one did. I tried to renominate it, but Sandy pointed to one of the sources, which has been taken to the reliable sources noticeboard; however, I expect it to pass. Basically, I do not want there to be any excuses when I renominate it. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 24 August 2008, 18:40 UTC)

Oldham Athletic A.F.C. seasons

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


I've recently expanded the article which I created and was hoping to get some feedback before attempting to get it featured. Thanks. :) Latics (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs)

  • Most of the statements in the "History" section could do with being referenced, even if it's just a case of repeating the ref from the first line.
  • Any chance that data about the top goalscorers for each season could be listed?
  • If you can find the data, you should probably include Oldham's performance in the 1945-46 FA Cup.
  • In the row for the 2005-06 season, "Cup" should be capitalised in "Lancashire Senior Cup".

That's all from me for now. Hope that helps. – PeeJay 20:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

  • You shouldn't repeat the name of the list in the lead, look at Sunderland A.F.C. seasons to see how to word the lead better.
  • "by finishing as runners-up" change to "after finishing as runners-up"
  • "In the same season, the club earned their first trophy by winning the Lancashire Senior Cup." change to "The club won their trophy during this season, winning the Lancashire Senior Cup".
  • "It wouldn't be until the 1952–53 season" use would not instead of wouldn't contractions should be avoided
  • "By the late 1950s, the club was in the Football League Fourth Division and twice had to apply for re-election into the Football League." needs a reference
  • "runners-up in the Anglo-Scottish Cup as they fell to Burnley 4–1 on aggregate." fell is a bit POV I would change it to lost and perhaps wikilink aggregate?
  • "in 1989–90 season," add the before 1989-90
  • "1990 Football League Cup Final." needs wikilinking
  • "in 1992–93, were founding members of the FA Premier League." should include "the club" after the comma and before were
  • "gradually fell back into the First Division"not sure what this means exactly I think you should re word it
  • Do you have information for the top scorers and average attendance for each season as this should be included.

Good luck with the list NapHit (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and PeeJay for the feedback. I really can't find the top scorers, I've been looking for them for a while now and I can only find stats going back to around 1997–98. I guess eventually I'll get around to doing it by going game-by-game. But again, thanks again for the comments. Latics (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO, top scorers back to 1997-98 is better than nothing, but you're probably quite right by leaving them out as an FLC reviewer might look upon it as the list being incomplete. All I can suggest is that you invest in some statistical books about the club. – PeeJay 08:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

The impression given by the list is that the club has only participated in the Lancs Senior Cup three times in its history, this surely isn't correct. Added to the fact that I would imagine the team that won it in 05/06 was most likely the club's reserves rather than first team, I'd be inclined to omit this competition altogether. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an annual competition as far as I know. I know that Manchester United and Liverpool use their reserves for the competition, but I'm not certain on any other teams. I'll look around for recent results and yeah, I'll probably end up removing it altogether. Latics (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 24 August 2008, 08:27 UTC)

List of characters in The Simpsons

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to make it a Featured List. There is a June 2006 FLC but I think it is not actual anymore. Suggestions?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 24 August 2008, 07:34 UTC)

Chicago Midway International Airport

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


This article, needs a peer review if it is going to become a FA. It is currently GA, but I think that improvment is still needed. All comments are welcome!! -Marcusmax (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from HG (talk · contribs) Hope these thoughts are useful.

  1. The lead is too long. I think some of the locational information can be moved below and key points put up higher. Looks to me like too many links, hard to read that way. Many some of the numerical details can be moved into relevant sections.
  2. Good photos, add dates. Are they regular size?
  3. Ok, I've never looked at an airport article before, but it's a bit dense with information that strikes me, no offense, as sometimes trivial. Like all the runway numbers or the list of Southwest's cities.
  4. Should previous airlines be under the airline section?
  5. The table of incidents is a good start. Maybe give full sentences in the summaries. Maybe combine "Aircraft (Registration)" as one column.
  6. Maybe revise history headings or add date ranges

Well, good luck, you all are on the right track.

Hope I corrected much of which you listed, some things are standard aviation however. -Marcusmax (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)(Peer review added on Sunday 24 August 2008, 03:00 UTC)

Burger King legal issues

Article (