Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer 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

Peer review

The Peer review process is designed to provide ideas for improvement and expansion of articles within our scope by subjecting them to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors

Once an article is nominated, it will remain on the list untill the nominator feels he/she has gained enough feedback. Old nominations can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review/Peer review archive

How to request

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. Add "history" to the topic parameter like so: {{Peer review page|topic=history}}.
  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.

Current requests

Flag of Romania

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to eliminate all possible mistakes in it, in order to apply for featured article status. I've checked the article and it seems to be well written and referenced (I wrote the Romanian version and Biruitorul translated it entirely in English). However, we could use a fresh, neutral perspective.

I'm concerned about:

  • the hardest criteria to match (1-a) for FAs: "the article must be well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
  • possible omissions of references where needed.
  • possible use of peacock terms.
  • the appropriate length and number of pictures. Are there any unnecessary details which could be eliminated from the article?

Thanks, Alex:D (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

History of Mexico City

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… its pretty darn comprehensive and Id like to get it at least to GOOD status!

Thanks, Thelmadatter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A few points (I'm not very experienced at peer review):

  • The introduction to any section probably shouldn't begin with a conjunction. I'd rephrase the first sentence just to give a basic overview (i.e. ancient Aztecs to Spanish occupation to today) and then begin the condensed history.
  • "great city" sounds weasely
  • "again was" should become "was again" or "again became"
  • Consider rephrasing "Over all of its post-Aztec history"
  • The two "however"s in the final paragraph of the lead don't seem right - rephrase one or both of these sentences. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Luan Da

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


This article is quite a bit longer than in the FAC - thanks to Jappalang - and also contains some different facts. It's not because I made errors (well, it's mostly not because I made errors) - it's because the secondary sources and the different translations of the primary sources contradict one another. I now present to you, O great peer reviewers, a changed conman; nearly ready for FAC (hopefully!). Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  • "becoming very influential and marrying one of the daughters of the emperor." --> "became very influential and married one of the emperor's daughters." - sounds better? Giggy (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jørgen Iversen Dyppel

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I've just added a substantial chunk of info to it, and I'd like fresh eyes to take a look at the style/language, any weasel words that might have snuck in, POV problems it could have, etc.

Thanks, Mikkel (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

4u1e's comments

Hi, my usual random thoughts:

  • You need to do a check to ensure that refs follow punctuation and not the other way round.
  • You've got a lot of single sentence paragraphs - see if you can build them up into more substantial topic-based ones.
  • Where there appear to be gaps in the story (i.e. Dyppell's education) they need to be filled, or a positive statement along the lines of "little is known about..." could be included if this is the case.
  • You should probably gives rigsdaler in full at the first appearance, and you need to disambiguate the link used.
  • "(and piousness for white servants)" How did he mandate piousness? Indentured servants is linked here for a second time, and does not need to be.

More to come. 4u1e (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • It would be useful to review the tense of the article as well. As a historical article it should pretty much be in straight past tense throughout. I spotted a few inappropriate uses of present tense: "Taylor notes that none may leave the island" (Taylor noted that none could leave the island), "In the subsequent investigation, it comes forth that" (In the subsequent investigation, it came forth that) etc. There may be more examples.
  • "Among Dyppel's initial tasks included" could be simply "Dyppel's initial tasks included"?
  • "Due to the Danes not being used to the climate (Krarup mentions that the Danes had trouble with "the poisonous fumes" of the tropical forest, as well as the foreign food, whereas the Dutch were better acclimatized[22]), as well as the Franco-Dutch and Anglo-Dutch wars, this proved a complex undertaking." What is the complex undertaking referred to here? It's not clear from the current wording.
  • The connection between the first and second sentences of the 10th para of 'Governership' isn't really clear. Presumably Dyppel was considered a good governor?
  • "Krarup has a dim view of the predominantly Dutch and convicted settlers, but skips over Dyppel's countrymen (Danes, Norwegians, and Holsteiners" As currently worded, this is more a comment on Krarup than Dyppel: can it be re-worded to focus more on Dyppel?

More to come. 4u1e (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • "Esmit was welcomed with warmly" "with" is not needed here; where was he welcomed warmly and by whom?
  • "Dyppel called upon the new administration to review his term, for which he got a public declaration of appreciation" Not sure what is meant by this sentence: whose term was reviewed (presumably Jansen?), and who got a public declaration (presumably Dyppel?). The sentence is ambiguous at present. Also, what is a "public declaration of appreciation"?
  • "not affectionate of the German" Was Esmit German? This has not been mentioned previously.

It's an interesting and well-researched story. Your English is far superior to my French (my only second language), but I recommend that you get the article copyedited by a native English speaker: there's quite a lot of mildly incorrect or non-standard usage in the article. Hope these comments are helpful. 4u1e (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Spitfire (1776 gunboat)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because…

it is a new article. Thanks, Hollingsworth (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from DanaBoomer

Hi! This looks like a great article overall. I'm not sure where you're headed with the article (for example, do you want to take it to GA or are you just looking for suggestions), but I'm going to give you the suggestions that I would if I were reviewing the article for GA status, and you can take them from there!

  • My main concern with the article as it stands right now is referencing. Articles on WP are coming more and more to expect in-line superscript referencing. For example, see the article MS West Honaker. You'll notice that the main editor uses a dual system to give extraneous information it's own section. However, the sections labeled "References" and "Bibliography" are the ones I'm attempting to point out. In the Spitfire article, I notice that you have some books and websites listed under references, as well as parenthetical referencing at the end of some paragraphs. Page numbers, however, are needed, as well as splitting out which information comes from which book.
  • The lead should be expanded. For an article of this length, one to two paragraphs is appropriate, and if only one paragraph, it should be more than two sentences. Because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, it generally doesn't need to be referenced unless you are backing up direct quotes or really controversial information.
  • External links, such as the one at the end of the Action at Valcour Island section, are not really supposed to be included, and it should probably be turned into a reference or external link.

Other than these things, this is a very nice article, and should be fairly easy to get to GA status. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so if you have any questions about my comments, please drop me a note on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bergen, New Netherland

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

I've listed this article for peer review because:

It presents an overview of 17th century history of what would become (a part) State of New Jersey and attempts to present it w/o too much reference to contemporary civic boundaries/structures. In other words, the chronology is taken more from the perception of the inhabitants of the period, placed into a somewhat wider context, rather than municipal histories (such the "The Histoy of....., or "The Story of....) common to town/county historical societies. Both text and images support a balance between specific and broader reasons why region developed as it did.

Text is fairly straightfoward information, comprehensive, generally well-referenced, and with no apparent grammatical/spelling errors. Without regard to the "importance" of article, what is required to change the rating to a GA?


Thanks, Djflem (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting piece with nice illustrations and maps. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead should be a summary or abstract of the main text. Ideally, it should at least mention the main idea in each of the main sections, and it should not include material that is undeveloped in any of these sections. The existing lead says nothing about Halve Maen, the Lenape, and other sections, and it discusses the name origin, which is not mentioned in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD for more ideas about how to re-do the lead.
  • Section headings don't normally include links. I'd suggest unlinking Halve Maen and the rest of the linked heads per WP:HEAD.
  • Image:Perzik.jpg needs a caption.
  • Per MOS:UNLINKDATES, dates in the main text are no longer autoformatted. I ran a script to unlink them.
  • The citations have problems. Some of them use the "cite" family of templates. This is a good idea, and I'd suggest using those templates for all the rest of the citations, many of which are incomplete. If possible, you should try to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for the on-line sources. Please see WP:CIT.
  • A top-to-bottom copyedit would probably catch and fix small errors. For example, a sentence in the lead says, "Some say that it so called for any of number of towns in the Netherlands or the city in Norway" This sentence seems to be missing a word or two, and it lacks a terminal period. A bit further on, "prompted by the settlers return" should be possessive, "settlers' ".

This is not a complete review, but I hope these few comments are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

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


This article has recently passed an A class review and a MILHIST Peer Review, since when it has undergone some alterations. We are hoping to put it up for FAC soon and would like any feedback on what else should be done to the article in preparation, with attention to content (any gaps? undue weight?), format and so forth.

We are putting this up for an open peer review after the MILHIST PR because we would like to get the viewpoints of some editors outside of the military and equine wiki-communities. Thanks, Montanabw, Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Gwinva (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Horses in warfare/archive1.

History of Kirkcaldy

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


I've listed this article for peer review because i would like to see what status it would be able to achieve to start off with.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian Boulton comments: I will do my best to get round to this in the next day or so. In the meantime, can I suggest that you move one of the images, perhaps the harbour, up to the lead? The article looks strange without a lead image. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are comments on the first few sections:-

  • Lead
    • The lead, apart from needing an image, is under-linked. The following terms should be linked: royal burgh; burgh of barony (not "barons")—this term is linked later, but should be linked at first mention; Bronze Age; cist; linoleum; flax.
    • Some stray commas: commas are required after "landscape" and after "12th century". Commas should be deleted after "cist burials" and "nail making"
    • The word "nonetheless does not seem necessary
    • The statement that "The town's history begins as a villa" is troublesome on two counts. First, the town's history does not begin as a villa; it might begin with a villa. Secondly, the statement is too terse, without any explanation as to what a villa is, in this context. Possibly "a single dwelling". But a little further explanation is necessary
    • You need to rephrase the sentence beginning "Although Kirkcaldy benefitted greatly...", indicating how the town benefitted from the products which you name.
    • Overall, the lead is a little short. This may not be too much of a problem for GA purposes, but if you have FA as a goal, the lead will definitely need expansion.
  • Early history
    • "later", in parentheses, is uninformative; can you give a date approximation?
    • The whole formulation in the parentheses is awkward: (later a 4mi/6.4 km). "mi" is not used when miles are the principal measurement. Personally, I would rephrase the whole sentence, avoiding brackets altogether except to indicate the metric equivalent.
    • We have the unexplained villa description again. Assuming that a villa is just what it sounds like, why was reference to Kirkcaldy as a villa an indication that it was regarded as a town? The opposite indication seems more likely.
    • The sentence which begins "In granting this right, a year later, the kin though..." reads a bit clumsily. Try dropping te comma after "right" and losing the "though" altogether.
    • In the sentence beginning "Kirkcaldy therefore now had the right to trade..." I suggest dropping "therefore" and bringing forward the "for the first time" clause, so that the sentence begins: "Kirlcaldy now had, for the first time, the right to trade..."
    • The word "whilst" is disapproved by Wikipedia because "in American English...it can seem pretentious or archaic" (see Whilst). Personally I see nothing with te word, but there are plenty who do.
    • "...playing a part to boost Scland's economy" would be more grammatical if amended to "playing a part in boosting Scotland's economy"
    • David II seems rather improbably long-lived. We have him devising charters in 1128 and 1130, then he is apparently requesting a regality charter in the late 14th century! Were there two David IIs?
    • "feu-ferme status" should be linked thus: feu-ferme status.

I will comment on the rest of the article a little later.Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

  • (Note: I'm happy to continue the review, but would like first to see some response to my initial points.) Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Butre (1656)

This article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Ahanta and the Netherlands, dating from 1656. In it a form of protection is established which would last for almost 213 years.

The article is brief but succinct, with all the necessary information and a link to the full text of the treaty on Wikisource. It is my belief that the article is already at GA-level, or very close to it, and deserves a serious assessment and commentary eventually leading it towards that status. Also, the layout of the article could well serve as a model for other short bilateral treaties in Wikipedia, so also look at it with that in mind. Michel Doortmont (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 17 October 2008, at 15:15.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.