Wikipedia:REVIEW

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:REVIEW 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

For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Business.
For Peer reviews sorted by date, see Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date.
For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases.
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/October 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:


October 5 • TNA Bound for Glory • List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season • Strawberry Fields Forever • Rennell Island
October 4 • Arad, Israel • List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations • Ted Bundy • Mathematical economics
October 3 • Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire • Stephen Crane • List of Mexican footballers playing outside Mexico
October 2 • Corner Gas • List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl characters • 1956 FA Cup Final
October 1 • Raphael • Bloody Sunday (1969)
September 29 • Louvre
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

Arts

Megadeth discography

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

I've listed this article for peer review because the lead section must be completely rewritten, and need help with this.

Thanks, Cannibaloki 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead section is the only section of the article that provides any information other than lists of albums and songs. The whole article could be expanded to offer reviews by secondary sources of some of the albums and then pared down to include less complex information in favour of a condensation of what would now be written in the other (expanded) sections. Basically, the lead it too long and should provide an overview of the rest of the article, which would be expanded to discuss the albums separately. I guess my personal opinion is that a lead should be useful by readers who also use navigational popups because I often hover over a link to get a brief, but useful, overview of the article if; instead of I were to press "click". fr33kman -s- 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2008, 18:35 UTC)

Supergrass discography

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FAC again and want to make sure everything is sorted before doing so. What work does this article need to be able pass for a FA?

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2008, 18:31 UTC)

Mark Speight

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

This has just had a failed candidacy for featured article status. I would like feedback so that when I take it back to FAC in a few weeks, it will go a lot more smoothly, without people bringing up big issues on the second to last day.

Thanks, -- how do you turn this on 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

Jbmurray, who went through the whole article, removing apparent plagiarism, would be the one to speak to here. I actually agree with the quote anyhow. Partying is the exact wording used by Speight. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Speight was questioned by police since he was the only other person living in the flat, and the BBC cancelled the Saturday repeat edition of SMart" - he was questioned because the BBC cancelled an episode? That's how it reads.
  • "but he was released on bail" - remove the "he" (keep an eye out for little things like this)
  • Another little thing to keep an eye out for
Someone else changed all of those. I had it as Collins' too. -- how do you turn this on 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, Collins's is right; Collins' is wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "and that she had suffered 60% burns to her body" - were these as a result of the drugs/alcohol, or something else?
    • Oh, wait, you mention hot water next sentence. Probably should mention it before you mention the burns.
      • That whole paragraph could be resorted a bit so it's more logically sequenced.
  • "after he had been dropped off at Wood Green tube station that morning, but never showed up" - maybe end the sentence before this, then have a new one with "Despite being dropped off at Wood Green tube station he never showed up"
  • "Speight missed her because she was not home when he called" - rather than throw in a "her" without making it clear the counsellor was a woman, reword this entire sentence

Hope these help. Giggy (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

David

Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


There is an overuse of non-free images! The first image conveys nothing that the second image doesn't and should be removed per WP:NFCC minimal use. Efforts should be made to get a free image from his ex-agent/publicist/TV company/Flikr. If a non-free image needs to be used, then a fair use rationale should be added per WP:NFCC 10c Fasach Nua (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the Speight of the Art foundation but they've yet to get back to me. I very, very much doubt the BBC would provide a free photo, and flickr simply doesn't have any (and the one it does has, the owner has refused to release rights on it, which is a real shame, but nothing I can do about). I will, however, remove the second photo. -- how do you turn this on 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the first photo with the second one, since the second one is more descriptive, showing him actually doing some of his work. -- how do you turn this on 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Escape Artist Swyer

A bit unsure what I'm doing here but hey.

  • "Still, some parents criticised..." under "Death and legacy" is weaselly.
  • I know I've said this before but could you include a bit more on the Newsround reports? There were two - the CBBC news update here and the full Newsround report here. Maybe there is a text version of some of Kirsten's comments from the interview that could be included?
  • The Daily Mail is not known for its balanced reporting and its love for the BBC; I would be wary of its glaring headline. Perhaps take it with a pinch of salt. Is there another source you could use? Preferably one that doesn't quote the DM's "sick and appalled" stance. This from the BBC itself looks like a good explanation of actions.
  • Otherwise, good. It just seems a bit short to be honest. I know most people know him for his tragic death but there must surely be a lot more to write about SMart: perhaps descriptions of some of the art and attitudes towards getting kids into art. This is what he is commendable for.
  • "Speight worked on numerous other shows, ranging from children's television to adult factual programmes". Call me thick but it isn't obvious which of the programmes listed were art shows, children's shows, factual shows, etc. Oh and did he and Collins get married in fancy dress? It's left hanging.

More if I think of any. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2008, 12:00 UTC)

Keating!

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working to expand and improve it and am really interested in getting some feedback, particularly as this is the first time I've really edited a musical theatre/music-related article and I'm a little unsure.

Thanks, Shoemoney2night (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2008, 08:22 UTC)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see this article get to featured status before the 40th anniversary of the book's publication in 2009. This article has gone through an extensive rewrite and expansion. It has been through a FAC before, but it was recommended that after some more work, that it go through a peer review. I believe that this article needs a thorough copyediting more than anything else, and I'd appreciate the input for its improvement.

Thanks, --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 7 October 2008, 04:44 UTC)

List of House episodes

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Featured List. I've reviewed the past failed FLC nominations and the past peer review, and it looks like most of the issues listed there have since been addressed. Note that this hasn't had an FLC or peer review for 18 months now, so not only has House changed since then, but so has Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FLC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. (Bear in mind that FAC and FLC might have differing requirements about where to put citations, but the reliability of sourcing should stay the same between the two processes.)
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Tv.com is not a reliable source, I'm sorry.
  • The lead is to short, per WP:LEAD. Maybe you should check this list or this list for inspiration.
  • Although it's not required, it would look better if you place a little bit of information above every season (see this list).

I'll try to help you this week if I find some spare time, I hope my comments have been usefull. --Music26/11 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've increased the lead a bit, added an image and added (and deleted) some references. The list might need a bit more referencing, but it's much better. As I said before, a little bit of information would look better if you list it for FLC.--Music26/11 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the TVJab reference with a Washington Post link. Hope that's sufficiently reliable. :-).
  • I'll be happy to add more references. Should individual episode reviews be linked here, or in the articles in question? See my recent edit to Dying Changes Everything for an example. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 6 October 2008, 02:56 UTC)

Strawberry Fields Forever

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want it promoted to Featured Article.

Thanks, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 5 October 2008, 22:14 UTC)

Gregory House

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


I've listed this article for peer review because, I want to know what has to be expanded on this article before I list it for FAC for the fourth time. Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, --Music26/11 08:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - note that 14 days must pass between an unsucessful FAC and putting an article up for PR. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 4 October 2008, 08:46 UTC)

The Scott Mills Show

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


I'm really just looking for ways that I can improve the article. I have made quite a few changes to the page and I think they are improvements but is there anything I can take out or add to make this a better article? Please let me know your thoughts, they'll be much appreciated.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The article lacks citations. There are a few, but there really should be ones that reference every statement. It also needs a thorough copyedit. A lot of sections are very short as well - could they be expanded? Best, -- how do you turn this on 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The lead is also for a summary of the whole article - it currently reads more like a mix of facts randomly thrown together. -- how do you turn this on 20:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I need to echo the above, really. Not enough citations; most sections are a tad too short; lead needs slight re-writing. Also, the history section currently reads more like a history of Scott Mills himself than this show. Having said that, this is a fairly solid start for an article, and in all honesty (citations aside), it could be brought up to a very high standard fairly quickly. Good work thus far! TalkIslander 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 October 2008, 19:41 UTC)

Barney Gumble

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


I've listed this article for peer review for FA-readiness. Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the article is too short to be FA, but its anyway a good article, thought does not go with WP:NOTABILITY. --Fixman(Praise me) 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Another Comment: why do you think this article is FA ready if its just a C-class article? Instead, try to make it a B-class article or a good article before. --Fixman(Praise me) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with the above comments and do not think this is yet at GA level, let alone FA, but there is a good start here.

  • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD. 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
  • Article needs many more references - the whole first paragraph in the Personality section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The article is written chiefly from an in-universe perspective and should be written more from an out of universe persepctive. Only 2 of the 14 refs are not directly from the Simpsons episodes or DVDs. What have critics said about Barney? The stuff people associated with the show say about him is good, but there has to be more. See WP:IN-U.
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on fictional characters that many be good models, see Troy McClure or Jabba the Hutt

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 October 2008, 16:31 UTC)

Springfield (The Simpsons)

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


Any suggestions for improvement (especially in-universe clean-up) would be fine. Thanks, Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I just reviewed Barney Gumble and thought I would continue on a Simpsons kick. This is more substantial as an article, but I still do not think this is yet at GA level, let alone FA, but there is a good start here.

  • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD. Nothing important should be in the lead only - but the reference to "Blame it on Lisa" is only there (and why not identify the episode)? 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
  • Article needs many more references - for example, the whole Rivalry with Shelbyville section has no refs or there are some direct quotations without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I also worry some of the refs do not meet WP:RS - what makes ABout.com a reliable source, for example?
  • The article is written chiefly from an in-universe perspective and should be written more from an out of universe persepctive. Most of the refs are directly from the Simpsons episodes or DVDs. What have critics said about Springfield? The stuff people associated with the show say about the city is good, but there has to be more. See WP:IN-U.
  • People and culture section is very listy - if this ever goes to FAC it will need to be converted to prose.
  • There are many one or two sentence short paragraphs and sections. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the Ned Flanders' quote on Ohio, Nevada, Maine and Kentucky is given at least twice (and is not cited one of those times)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 October 2008, 16:20 UTC)

Corner Gas

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…I am new to editing TV series articles, and have tried to follow the guidelines. Many editors have worked on the article, it would be good to pursue GA or FA status for the article, and begin here.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk 03:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 2 October 2008, 03:30 UTC)

No Jacket Required

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have done extensive work on the article (See here, and here for what the article looked like before I got ahold of it,) and would love to see what else the article needs for improvements. One section that I would love to get an opinion on is the "Songs" section. I had at one point made sub-sections for each song (See here for latest revision with the edits, before another editor changed it, which I still am not sure on. Another section I'd like to get feedback on is the "Tour" section, as I am not really all that sure on what the section specifically needs. I am pretty much looking for ANY sort of feedback I can get for this article.

Thank you so much, and anyone's views are appreciated! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

  • Rather than using "#1", use "number one" (except in tables of chart figures); it reads easier and looks better
  • "("Don't Lose My Number" wasn't released as a single in the UK)" - I doubt this is important enough to mention in the lead
  • Billboard needs to be in italics (MOS:ITALICS, magazines)
  • "and the three singles that were released in the UK all reached the top 20 on the UK charts." --> "while the three singles released in the UK reached the top 20 there." or something like that
  • ""No Jacket Required" features various guest vocalists" - album, italics
  • Not sure if you need to say which song the performers appeared on, just that they were there (in the lead, at least)
  • Films also need italics
  • The lead doesn't really talk about the album itself. The musical content, lyrics, etc.
  • No information on recording, production, development of the album as a whole (in the lead, or in its own section)?
  • "The Maître d' argued that the jacket wasn't "proper".[4] The Maître d' who refused service at the famed..." - wikilink stuff the first time it's used
  • "The Maître d' who refused service at the famed "Table Number One" was named George Montgomery, and he passed away in 1992." - on second thoughts, is this relevant? (or sourced?)
  • TV programs also need italics :)
  • Reception section can probably be beefed up a fair bit. Take a look at some other album FAs for ideas.
  • Commas always out outside brackets (see some of my edits...).

Hope these help. Will look again some time soon. Giggy (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 October 2008, 22:51 UTC)

Raphael

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it effectively, fully, but succinctly covers Raphael's life.

Thanks, RossF18 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 1 October 2008, 15:39 UTC)

Louvre

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…it is nearing FA criteria. In May, this article had a failed FAC nom and a Peer Review. The concerns raised in these reviews have been addressed, but I hope for one more critical review before going to FAC. Thanks much for your time!

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • On a quick look, much improved. The amount on the early building seems about right now. The pyramid paragraph seems oddly placed - it would be better moved up to fit into the chronolgical sequence. Referencing and prose seem improved, but the article still has a strong whiff of the guide-book. Some stuff on evening opening, admission prices, number of entrances - is it only through the pyramid? do they still close on Monday is it? are the queues still terrible? would be useful. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Usual order of refs/etc is See also, notes, then works cited. Might consider changing that.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this (although I guess you won't see my thanks :)--I'll come to your talk later today. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs)

  • This is a well-written article. I suspect that's the reason there hasn't been much input in this peer review. I think it's pretty much ready for an FAC. The only thing to say is that I concur with Ealdgyth's above comments about the order of refs/ect. Good work, and best of luck. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 September 2008, 16:48 UTC)

Feeder

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


I've managed to get this article up to GA status, but I now believe that a FA status is possible. Please may you list a series of points I need to cover to bring the article up to this level :) Many thanks. Marcus Bowen (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

  • The lead does not follow WP:LEAD as I see it - it is too detailed and not an inviting summary and overview of the article. I also think the paragraphs are not balanced - the first is only two sentences, the second is too long - this may be seen as an issue under WP:WEIGHT too.
  • When I saw they were from "South Wales", I originally thought they were from "New South Wales", i.e. Australia. Perhaps this should say something about the UK / Britain?
  • The article needs a serious copyedit to polish the language - a few examples
    • "These consisted of a few bands they played in including a stint as sound engineers, before forming a rock band called 'Reel' and sacked their bass player before replacing him with Taka Hirose, who placed an advert in Loot." This is a run-on sentence and should probably be split into two sentences (or three?). The languiage makes false impressions or statements in places - it sounds like they were in a band of sound engineers or that the bass player placed the ad (the band did).
    • Errors in Before the album[']s release, "We Are the People" charted at number twenty-five in the singles chart, making it their worse [worst] chart placing for a lead single since 1999's "Day in Day Out". I think "chart placing" is also awkward - chart position perhaps?
  • I agree on the refs statements above.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • There are three sound clips and at least one non-free image - how do these meet WP:NFCC?

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 ><>°° 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 September 2008, 14:00 UTC)

Rhinemaidens (Wagner)

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


I'd be pleased to receive any advice or comments as to how this article might be improved, in terms of prose, images, anything else. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've re-read the article and the following thoughts have struck me
  • You report that their in-world origins are unclear beyond vaue references to a father, but they are the Rhinedaughters in German which does hint at an origin.
    • Yes, daughters of this unspecified father figure, but nothing else is revealed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Specified enough for Stewart Spencer to refere to them as "the river's nymphean daughters". Okay the River Rhine's personality and attributes as a deity aren't discussed, but he is the the Rhinemaiden's father.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I've now added a reference to Spencer.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As you describe the Rhinemaidens' music, some musical illustration is appropriate. I have on CD two tracks recorded in Bayreuth in 1904 with piano accompaniament, but the sound quality is poor. However, discussion of the music would justify extracts from a more modern recording provided we keep to the rules about duration: and sound quality.
    • I am afraid I don't know the method or technology for musical illustrations, and would need to be told how to set this up. I have several modern recordings. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Me neither. But someone over at WT:WPO has been uploading and hopefully would be able to help.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stylistically, I've noticed a tendency to glue two sentences together with "and" to make one when there isn't enough connection to really justify the merging.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll look at this.Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've been through and knocked out about half a dozen "ands", which has refereshed the prose considerably. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think for FA you need to expand on earlier similar figures in the medieval literature. Rackham is all very well, but too dominant in the pics here. This is a possibility, and a modern production pic might justify a FU rationale. Do none of the interpretive critics have more to add? If you already know the story there's not much added value frankly. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for these comments.
      • On the first point, User:Peter cohen has made some valuable recent additions to the text. Bearing in mind that all discussion of the Rhinemadiens' origins, and their relationships to other mythical figures, are conjectural, I feel there are limits to how far this expansion should be taken, but I will continue to look for appropriate material.
      • With regard to Rackham, I agree - more range and diversity required in the images. I can't actually find the Gutenberg one you suggest as a possible alternative, as your link takes me to a blank page. Can you indicate where it is? And would it be free to use?
        • So it does; I found it on a Google images search for "Rhinemaidens Bayreuth" I think. It should be free as it is C19. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I've found two Gutenberg images which look worth using. Just checking there are no restrictions Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I've now replaced two of the Rackhams with new images which certainly add variety. Any observations welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes, better now, though it's a pity we can't use anything more modern. Johnbod (