Wikipedia:Peer review

Main Current Instructions Discussion Archive This page is about editorial review of specific articles. For off-Wiki review of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:External peer review. For pending changes, see Wikipedia:Reviewers. "WP:PR" redirects here. For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases. For patrolled revisions, see Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions. Wikipedia's peer review process is a way to receive ideas and feedback from other editors about articles. An article may be nominated by any user, and will appear on the list of all peer reviews. Other users can comment on the review. Peer review may be used for potential good article nominations, potential featured article candidates, or an article of any "grade". Peer review is a useful place to centralise a review from other editors about an article, and may be associated with a WikiProject; and may also be a good place for new Wikipedians to receive feedback on how an article is looking. Peer reviews are open to any feedback, and users requesting feedback may also request more specific feedback. Unlike formal nominations, editors and nominators may both edit articles during the discussion. To request a review, or nominate an article for a review see the instructions page. Users are limited to requesting one review at any one time, and are encouraged to help reduce the backlog by commenting on other articles. Any user may comment on a review, and there is no requirement that any comments may be acted on. A list of all current peer reviews, with reviewer's comments included, can be found here. 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. Peer review tools Current reviews List of full reviews Reviews by date Review log Archive of past reviews Reviews by Wikiproject Editing articles Start a new article Develop the article Arts Language and literature A Contract with God This is Will Eisner's first graphic novel, and the book credited with popularizing the term "graphic novel". The article has recently become a Good Article, and I hope to nominate it as a Featured Article Candidate in the near future. Please split any hairs you see fit with this article. Thanks, Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Not going to do a full review: but here is the order I generally see well organized (and intuitive) novels articles: Lead, Background, Plot, Style/Analysis, Reception, Publication history, adaptation. This leads to a more logical connection between the various main content parts (Lead through Style/Analysis) and the contextual real world information (Reception thru adaptation), which alot of people aren't looking for, can be pushed towards the end. Sadads (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) I've shifted the sections around, but not quite in the way you've proposed—seen a lot of different arguments for the order of sections—some insisting that "Publication history" must come first, and the Novels MoS advises Lead => Plot => Characters => Major themes => Style => Background => Publication history => Reception => Adaptations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Saturday 1 February 2014, 08:14 UTC) Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties is a WP:GA article about freedom of speech and censorship related to use of the word "fuck" in society. This peer review comes after a recent successful quality improvement project which brought the article Fuck (film) to WP:FA. I'd appreciate any help to further along the quality improvement process for this related article. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Notified: User talk:Imzadi1979, User talk:Piotrus, User talk:Red Phoenix, User talk:Rejectwater, User talk:John, User talk:Indopug, User talk:Quadell, User talk:GermanJoe, User talk:Jimfbleak, User talk:Wehwalt, User talk:Gen. Quon, User talk:Taylor Trescott, User talk:Lugnuts, User talk:Diannaa, User talk:Baffle gab1978, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Talk:Fuck, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech, User talk:Cirt. Note: Above users' talk pages notified, as these individuals had participated in previous levels of quality improvement and/or review at this article and/or Fuck (film), an article on a related topic. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Update: Notified Newyorkbrad due to interests in topics of law and legal history. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Comments by Piotrus Nice job. The only comment I'd have is that see also is a bit long, suggesting there's scope to integrate few concepts into the text. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Piotrus, I'll look into that and note back here afterwards. — Cirt (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, I've gone ahead and trimmed a few from the See also sect. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Comments by Wehwalt Good job. Lede "After initial difficulty with publication including a rejection by the Kansas Law Review 25 minutes after submission," I would cast this more actively, "Fairman had trouble finding a publisher for the article; it was rejected by the …" or similar. The various dates of publication of book, article, and paper (for so you tell us) make for some confusion. Can you look over this passage and see if it can be improved? "The book was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, which concluded, "Highly recommended. All readership levels."[1] " None of this is making the reader sit up and take notice. Suggest delete this sentence (also possibly the Horn Book Review, as a bit obscure). "Employed as a professor at" It strikes me that the first two words could be deleted without any loss of meaning. I gather he's a lawyer. This should probably be specified, and perhaps where he went to law school. It helps establish his professional qualifications. "His supervisors at Ohio State University" I would delete or shorten "at Ohio State University". It's understood. Also, the reader's attention should be drawn to the connection between this sentence and the one preceding, with some such word or phrase as "Nevertheless" Why is it considered a 2006 article? Aren't articles conventionally dated by their publication? "finally published". I'm not sure the "finally" is justified. After all, an article written one year might have to be published the next just due to the turn of the calendar. And even if that's not the reason, a year is not that long (cue the starving authors thrusting their bedraggled manuscripts) Content etc. A couple of choice examples of chapter titles would be good, I think. fuck have connotations separate from its meaning of" perhaps "distinct" for "separate". Be nice if you could toss in some form of the word "denotation" near "meaning". "court decisions related to its use have contradicted each other" this can be more succinctly stated, especially the part about "related to its use" which should be understood. Publication etc. You state in the lede that the book is an expansion of the article. You don't seem to state this anywhere in the body. If the article was published online, wouldn't that make it more difficult to publish in a law school review as it is no longer "original"? I don't think you're being fair to the reader at the end of "Background", if there are plausible alternative grounds for not publishing. You are clearly implying that they did not publish because of the title or subject matter. If you are presenting events in 2006 and 2007 as "Background", you can't leave out a material fact (publication on the network) that happened before a material fact you do present (the rejection by law reviews"). Reception "of his prior article of the same title." We know all about the article. Shorten to "of the article" "censorship of the word and advocated continued use of the term" I think you need to specify what word. Also, instead of "the term", I would say "it". "and warned that curbing" One "and" too many. "Impact" The "impact" seems to be that the author has done pretty well out of it. That's good for him, but it affects no one else, so where's the impact?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Reply: Thanks very much, will respond to above soon. — Cirt (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Response to comments by Wehwalt Done. Used proposed wording. Done. Reworked this passage Comment: Per WP:LEAD, we should retain this info in order for the lede sect to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Done. Added more info as requested. Done. Shortened wording as suggested and modified to include "nevertheless". Done. Fixed wording about year of article. Done. Removed word "finally" before "published". Done. Fixed wording as suggested. Done. Made this a bit more concise. Done. Modified wording in lede accordingly. Done. Merged Publication history sect into Background sect, and ordered all material in it chronologically. Done. Shortened phrasing. Done. Specified the word. Changed to "it". Done. Split into two sentences. Comment: I suppose I could merge this sect into Reception sect, and trim out the stuff about the "retard" issues that doesn't discuss "fuck" itself. Thoughts, Wehwalt, on that idea? — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I think it could be trimmed. It's not related, except in a backhanded sort of way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Done. I've gone ahead and trimmed the Impact sect down, and then merged the remainder into the Reception sect. Look better now, Wehwalt? — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I suppose. With respect to the review, I would say "simply formats for the author to repeatedly utilize the word 'fuck',". More impact. Aside from that it looks pretty good, keeping in mind I don't know the subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Done. And thanks very much for your kind words about the article, Wehwalt, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Comments by Jimfbleak Comments from Jim Prose is fine, just some thoughts: social science, psychoanalysis, linguistics, lexicography and etymology—links? The article is 74 pages long.[12] The word fuck is used over 560 times in the article. —combine these sections Anything on sales? The title virtually guarantees parochialism. Did it have any reception, sales or influence beyond the US? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Response to comments by Jimfbleak Thank you for your analysis that the prose is good. Done. Linked these terms. Done. Combined these sentences. I didn't come across any info on sales figures during my research. Unfortunately I didn't find info on that angle, though I did my best to try to find a full scope of source coverage. Thank you, Jimfbleak, for your helpful comments in this peer review, — Cirt (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Comments by Curly Turkey Alt text for the images would be nice filling in the "Media type" and "pages" fields in the infobox is one of my pet peeves—information that will almost ineveitably change from edition to edition—and lo and behold the body mentions a Kindle version as well (and there appears to be an .epub version as well) Is "Fuck", Cardozo Law Review (2007) a previous item in a series? "preceded_by" and "followed_by" are only to be used for series (such as volumes in the Harry Potter series). I'm not sure a "follow-up" counts. "is a book written": might want to specify "nonfiction" "on the article "Fuck" written by the author.": I'd make that "an article", and drop "written" as redundant "from academics in the fields of" (in the lead, and later in the body): you could safely drop "the fields of" "usage of fuck have" (lead and body): either "usages" or "has" "connotations completely distinct": you could safely drop "completely" "Fairman wrote his article": it's not immediately clear which article we're talking about at this point—I'd specify "Fairman's paper received favorable reception from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Horn Book Magazine. The book was positively reviewed by Publishers Weekly, Library Journal" For the lead, I don't think it's necessary to specify which publications gave it a good reception, unless there's a surprising reason for it "in their office in Dallas, Texas": Since we know we're in Texas already, I'd pipe & drop the ", Texas" "He focused his research into": I'm not used to this wording—is it common parlance to "focus research into" something? "He earned a reputation": I might combine this with the previous sentence (", and earned ...") "Fairman's research into "fuck" was motivated after learning": "research" is inanimate, so can't really be motivated. Something like: "Fairman was motivated to do reasearch on "fuck" after  ..."? "who utilized the word": or just "used"? "man who utilized the word in an email to a judge in 2004 and was subsequently arrested": to make it crystal clear that the arrest was due to the man's language, how about: "who was arrested for using the word in an email to a judge in 2004"? "Government spending" or "Government funding"? "He updated his article", "He discusses the efforts": not a fan of paragraphs that begin with a pronoun "updated his article with a follow-up piece": are "update" and "follow-up" not redundant here? "in paperback format by": you can safely drop "format" "these acts are diametrically opposed": you could safely drop "diametrically" "Writing for Library Journal, Marianne Orme": who's Marianne Orme? "a higher quality than The Complete Motherfucker: A History of the Mother of all Dirty Words by Jim Dawson": when did this book come out? Before Fairman's book? At the same time? "its forum on "Word Taboos" in 2010": if "Word Taboos" is the name of the forum rather than just its topic, then "on 'Word Taboos'" would be a forum on the forum—a metaforum! Drop the "on". rather than {{Multicol}}, might I suggest {{div col}} and a specified column width? A hard number of columns results in a lot of white space on wide screens, and on small or vertical screens, one column likely will be pushed offscreen. A specified column width allows the browser to choose an appropriate number of columns to fit the screen. "Further reading" is normally about the subject of the article, rather than the subject of the subject of the article. Since none of these books are about Fairman's book, I'd drop the entire section. ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, thank you, I will get on responding to these soon, and note back here when addressed. — Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Done. Thank you, Curly Turkey, I agreed with all of these suggestions and so I've implemented all of them directly into the article. Thanks again for your helpful recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Looks solid to me. I'd probably left-align the photo of Fairman, though, so it doesn't bump into the infobox. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Done. Aligned that image left. Thanks, Curly Turkey, it looks better that way. — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Hmmm ... I might play around with its placement a bit to avoid sandwiching with the infobox. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Looks better, Curly Turkey, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 26 January 2014, 00:59 UTC) Tagalog language I've listed this article for peer review because… This is one of the most important languages in Southeast Asia. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 22 January 2014, 06:57 UTC) Everyday life Mega Man Powered Up I'm putting this up for Peer Review because I would like to know what else I should do to the article before I take it to WP:GAN. Don't know what problems the article has so if anyone can help with addressing its issue, please check it out and let me know. Thanks, GamerPro64 02:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 4 February 2014, 02:37 UTC) Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a lot of changes to address feedback at its original FAC. I am hoping for some criticism to guide me toward FAC2. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC) I think this is at risk of being automatically closed in the next few days. A few people have said that they would be coming to review this. Please don't close this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Comments from Jim Text much more intelligible to a non-American I'm still confused whether it's inning or innings, they seem to be used interchangeably An "inning" is singular, "innings" is more than 1. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC) The streak spanned the 6th inning of an August 30, 1988 game against the Montreal Expos through the 10th inning of the September 28 — spell out sixth and tenth, "through to the tenth..." I would have thought. Hershiser's streak is considered by one commentator to be among the greatest individual streaks in sports and by another to be among the greatest records in baseball history.— clunky, perhaps "commentators have described this streak as...." Padre Benito Santiago — padre is redundant, you've already named the opposition, and I read it as a title at first! pennant race&dash; means...? retiring the side in order in his only inning of work— makes no sense even with a "from" after retiring 9-inning shutouts... Then the streak ended with 4 scoreless innings... 7-time...which was 5 fewer than Drysdale had... 20th win—spell out numbers(there are several other low numbers that need spelling later too. Also 22nd, 6th etc) There was little emphasis on historical context of his streak— missing "the" fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Upon reaching 40 consecutive innings— missing "his" Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC) fortuitous umpire ruling— explanation of what that was? he pitched on three days rest— should that be after three days rest? This is baseball lingo meaning that he pitched, rested for three days and then pitched on the fourth. After might be slightly more grammatical, but on is idiomatic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Works such as The New York Times... — I don't think papers are ever considered to be "works" Is publications O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC) I might have another look if I get time (Peer review added on Friday 31 January 2014, 05:27 UTC) 2013 Penn State Nittany Lions football team This article, my pet project during the Penn State season, recently passed GA, and my long-term goal if for it to achieve FA status, and perhaps even be TFA someday, however lacking much experience with the FA process, I was hoping for some input on what it needs to get there. Thank you in advance. Thanks, Go Phightins! 19:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Thursday 30 January 2014, 19:13 UTC) Toronto Argonauts This article has undergone a massive revamp and expansion since mid-December. It's now comprehensive and carefully sourced; I'm particularly proud of history that's been dug up. Images have been added and formatting gone over (dates, table colours, etc.) It's actually at GA but judging the nomination page it could be another month or two before anyone takes a look at it. I was only considering GA as a brush up before FA anyhow and if that can be done through PR instead then that would be fine. Myself and User:Danlaycock are the only two people to look at it recently. The talk page is rather lonely. It does need an uninvolved editor to give it a read. There's no one section that needs copyediting more than others. Thanks, Dontreadalone (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 26 January 2014, 05:57 UTC) New Year's Eve in London I've listed this article for peer review because I would like any views and/or opinions on what may be required in order to improve this article to good article and potentially featured article status. Thanks, Wes Mᴥuse 13:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Thursday 23 January 2014, 13:35 UTC) Mobile Fighter G Gundam I've listed this article for peer review to improve its sourcing and its accessibility for readers unfamiliar with its material. I worked hard on it last summer and hope to nominate it for Good Article sometime in the near future. Thanks, Hibana (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I've taken a brief look and will try and give more comments when I am at a computer. Overall it looks like a decent article at a glance but a couple of thing caught my attention. Unless anything has changed durin my time away, Plot doesn't need references as it's taken as understood that the work itself is proof of its plot. Secondly if you are sourcing information from DVDs, it need to be clearer what you are taking the claim from - is it a interview? Commentary? Printed matter included in the packaging? I do have a concern about the plot summary, I'm not convinced by some of the writing style/viewpoint. Have a look at some of the GA articles and see if you can get an idea for style. Essentially the talk of timelines sticks out and can go elsewhere in the article, perhaps production. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Opinions by DragonZero Reading this was an eyesore. Huge blocks of paragraphs with varying ideas makes me wonder about its concision or structure. GA-wise, it looks like it has a good chance of passing. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 21 January 2014, 12:20 UTC) Philosophy and religion Social sciences and society Disabled Sports USA I've listed this article for peer review because… Thanks, Davejsimonson (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your willingness to do a peer review on this article. I am asking for advice on how I can improve this article from its current C-class status to B or maybe even GA. If the article is missing important information or if there is irrelevant information to remove, I would be interested to know. I believe the article was given the C-class grade before I made major modification and added sources, so any advice would be gratefully accepted and acted on. (Peer review added on Friday 24 January 2014, 18:31 UTC) Imelda Marcos I've listed this article for peer review because… I need help in determining what else is needed to be done. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 22 January 2014, 06:59 UTC) Christiane Amanpour I've listed this article for peer review because… I am unsure if her article is ready to be upgraded. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 22 January 2014, 06:59 UTC) Corps Altsachsen Dresden I've listed this article for peer review because this article was written by people using English as a second language. We are a few Germans, a Half-Canadian, a Half-Englishman and me (German in the US). My friends and me first wrote/designed it in a team effort in word and a sandbox, then I copied it to the article space. If you have good input regarding the language, please feel free to edit the page. As fraternities in Europe are quite different from US Greek societies, we believe that this article strengthens the overall understanding of fraternal societies and how they developed of the centuries to what they are today. Thanks, WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   17:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Revievers: Review by User:GrapedApe Doing...--GrapedApe (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Y Done--GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback! I added two more thoughts below as specific reply. --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Note: Thanks to everyone who can provide additional thoughts in a secondary review of the article in its updated form. This is in response to the request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities#Corps_Altsachsen_Dresden for a review by native English speakers Under Fundamentals and Principles, what does "world view" mean within this context? Religion? Tolerance with regard to religious background or affiliation, yes. Furthermore, tolerance for the various ethnic and national backgrounds as well as political interests of their members. There are several kinds of fraternities in Germany that limit by either (1) religion, or (2) national/ethnic background or (3) political affiliation. Some of these more intolerant fraternities are linked to a former Nazi background, the so called "Burschenschaften". They claim tradition, that essentially goes back to an attitude just before or during the Third Reich. The German Student Corps are different in that sense that they do not judge or select based on national, ethnic, religious or political background; and they go back to the late 1700s. The Corps Altsachsen Dresden as a typical German Student Corps has members from several continents and expects a tolerant / open / unprejudiced understanding of their members. This is meant by a "tolerant world view". Does that help? --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   19:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Interesting. It might be worth expanding on that, if sources exist.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you, I did follow your suggestion by expanding and rewording things a bit. It's now the first (because most important) paragraph of the principles. --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I fixed the licenses at File:Band des Corps Altsachsen Dresden.png, File:Fuchsband des Corps Altsachsen Dresden.png and File:Zirkel of Corps Altsachsen Dresden.png. OK, I finished reading. Overall, very well-written. Honestly, it's better written than most Wikipedia articles, including those by native English speakers. You even used e.g. correctly, which is something that most English speakers mess up. There were some issues with the tone (some places are overly familiar with the subject, whereas encyclopedia articles ought to be more objective), but it's not too big of a problem unless you're going for GA. There are some places where additional supporting citations would be appropriate, but it's still very good for now. Good luck with this article, and thanks for bringing this uniquely German article into the English Wikipedia!--GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback. What are the specific points that should be referenced better for GA qualification? --WikimanGer  Talk • Mail   00:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Monday 20 January 2014, 17:03 UTC) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to work on this for FA once the amphetamine FAC closes and I finish editing this article and GA nominate it (I'll probably work on ADD for GA as well). I'd just like some input from others on potential improvements to style, citations, and scope/coverage. I plan to use the feedback from this review as, more or less, a to-do list for when I'm ready to work on the article. Thanks, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC) I just took a very quick glance, and think it is going to take a sustained effort to bring this article close to FA standards. Sometime since the last time I looked, some poorly sourced text calling Tourette syndrome a "rare" (not) disorder crept in, and tics were called "nervous" tics. The relationship between ADHD and TS is the subject of scores and scores of journal reviews, and is basically not covered here, and the contentious relationship isn't adequately covered in the faulty info from the NIH factsheet. There is scant coverage of the serious amount of information known about the neuropsych profile associated with ADHD, and the Treatment section is cursory at best. Prognosis also needs a lot more beef. To work this article up, someone needs to get hold of several dozen good reviews, and the article will need to depend on summary style, with multiple sub-articles. "Rare" disorder, "nervous" tics ... the NIH has long had bad information on their factsheet pages, and this has been discussed several times at WT:MED-- ditch them-- there are so many high-quality secondary reviews that sources like that shouldn't be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC) I expect to have my work cut out for me, but have a ton of relevant reviews and meta-analyses on ADHD or stimulants for ADHD that I plan to use from work on other articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Notes (to self) by Seppi333 on potential sources for inclusion Please add new comments/sections above this section. —Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) (Peer review added on Friday 17 January 2014, 21:43 UTC) History Profumo affair To any in the UK under 50, the names Profumo, Christine Keeler, Stephen Ward won't mean much except to students of political history with a particular interest in the late political career of Harold Macmillan. The Profumo affair broke in the spring and summer of 1963, with relevations of an affair between the dashing Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, and a 19-year-old "model", the delectable Christine Keeler. As the press gorged itself on lascivious details, rumours of all sorts of high-level jiggery-pokery filled the papers; Macmillan's slogan "You've never had it so good" was rewritten as "You've never had it so often". There was a dark side, too; a scapegoat was required, and was found in the form of Dr Stephen Ward, who on pretty thin evidence was convicted of vice offences and committed suicide before he could be sentenced. There are currently plans afoot for his legal rehabilitation. Anyway, as the paper boys used to say (though I never actually heard them say it), "Read all abaht it" – and comment as you will. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Comments from Tim riley Lead There is, meseems, more than a touch of post hoc ergo propter in the last para of the first sentence. WP:SYNTHESIS, I believe, is the jargon. I think the most you should say is that the affair weakened Macmillan and his government. Otherwise I think the lead is a masterly and wholly fair summary. You may well be right. There were three statements in that sentence: MacMillan's confidence was dented; he resigned through ill health; the Conservatives were defeated in 1964. The first two are related, the third is independent – Macmillan's resignation did not cause the Conservative defeat. I believe, however, it is correct to mention that defeat as a possible consequence of the affair. I have reworded accordingly, please tell me what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Nicely neutral now, I think. Objection withdrawn. Tim riley (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Profumo "Profumo's tenure as War Minister" – as that wasn't his formal job title, but just an encapsulation of it, I think the caps are inappropriate. (Same goes for the first line of the lead, now I think about it.) "an ex-professional soldier" – i.e. now an amateur one? "formerly a professional soldier" or "a retired army officer" perhaps? Keeler, Rice-Davis, Astor "shops, offices and cafés, none of which lasted long" – she really was the kiss of death if they all closed when she worked there. Perhaps "a series of short-lived jobs in…"? Brief liaison "Profumo is equally adamant" – the present tense seems strange Quote box – aren't the Russian limos "Zils", not "Zis"? Personal statement "She was required to forfeit her recognizance of £40" – being a G&S buff I am familiar with "liberated then on bail, on my own recognizances" (and I see we have Pooh-Bah's corroborative detail later), but for many readers a blue link will be useful. Retribution "Most newspapers considered the extent of the defection significant, and forecast that Macmillan would soon resign" – a swift and unsystematic rummage in the archives of The Times, Guardian, Observer, Express and Mirror bears out the first half of this sentence, but I didn't spot any predictions that Macmillan would soon resign. Does the source really say "most" papers said this? The source quotes the Daily Telegraph ("Premier likely to resign soon"), the Daily Mail (It's all the immigrants' fault! Down with Europe! "Mac: The End"), and the Mirror ("His future, short of a miracle, will be brief"). That's three – there were probably others, but I have altered "most" to "several". Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) "a widespread amorality" – more like immorality, I'd say. Aftermath "The report was read with great interest by the public" rather understates the case, I think. Apropos of the (unprecedented) small-hours release of the report The Observer reported, "Crowds clamoured outside the Stationery Office and the British public so far forgot its aversion from staying up late that it used up enough electricity watching special programmes to supply a fair-sized city." Citation is to hand if you're interested, but no obligation to purchase. I have slightly altered the text ("awaited with great anticipation"). There is an existing footnote that mentions the midnight crowds. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Dramatisations I hear from a friend who went recently that the Lloyd Webber musical is playing to poor houses, so you may need to update that sentence shortly. Notes Footnote 6 – you mention that Paget didn't say this, but what he did say was wonderful: "When self-indulgence has reduced a man to the shape of Lord Hailsham, sexual continence involves no more than a sense of the ridiculous." Also, the refs are in reverse numerical order at end of second sentence. Yes, I have that quote and other juicy morsels from Hansard. Much as I would like to shaft the egregious Hailsham, such comments are not really part of the Profumo affair, and regretfully I don't think any more should be included. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) That's all I can find. I don't see how this topic could be better dealt with than it is here. You will, I hope, let me know when you get to FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Many thanks for your review. Minor fixes all done, otherwise see my comments above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Comments from Sarastro I don't think I've repeated anything that Mr Riley says above, but apologies if I have done so! Most of these are just nit-picks. ”Ward's conviction has been described as an act of Establishment revenge”: The old chestnut: described by who? (Although this one could safely be ignored, to be honest, as it works as it stands. But someone usually comments. Although when I think, it might be me that usually comments…) A fair point, but as the issue is covered in the article I think this can stand. Let us see if the matter comes up again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's confidence, and he resigned as prime minister on health grounds in October 1963. His Conservative party was marked by the scandal…”: I’m not sure that the main body quite connects these events as closely as they are connected here. I am still pondering this, as Tim has issues around the same point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”In October 1962 Vassall was jailed for 18 years…”: For spying presumably. I think it is worth saying so explicitly. ”the former Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Thomas Galbraith resigned from the government pending enquiries”: This is a little confusing as at first sight, it looks like he resigned as Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but I see he had a different post at this stage. Without becoming bogged down in detail, could we say what role he held? Or maybe drop the Civil Lord of the Admiralty part and just say that he was his boss? ”and combined his political and military duties through the Second World War, in which he served in the Northamptonshire Yeomanry.”: This is the first mention of his military duties, but as written it looks a little like he had military duties before the war. Maybe just drop “his”? Minor point: Will non-UK readers know what a “safe seat” is? ”involving the ending of conscription”: Is there any way to avoid two close “-ing”s? Maybe “Profumo's tenure as War Minister coincided with a period of transition in the armed forces, when the ending [or abolishment?] of conscription led to the development of a wholly professional army.” Above five points all dealt with, more or less as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”His performance was watched with a critical eye by his opposition counterpart George Wigg, an ex-professional soldier.”: I’m not sure we need this here; the same point is made later when the scandal began to break. I think it reads better if I remove the second mention of the point, which I have done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”Stephen Ward, born in 1912, qualified as an osteopath in the United States.”: I wonder is there a way to re-arrange this so that we don’t introduce him as an osteopath twice. I don't think it can be done easily, but I'm open to suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”and sought Ward's help to this end, allocating him to a case officer known as "Woods”.”: The wording seems a bit off here; if they were looking for his help, would it not be “allocating to him a case officer”? Slightly reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”Keeler maintains that although Ward asked her to obtain information about nuclear weapon deployment from Profumo, she did not do so.”: This is presumably Stephen Ward, but is a little confusing at first sight as we have just mentioned Viscount Ward. I have clarified this, though I think it looks distinctly odd and I may have further thoughts. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”Profumo is equally adamant that no such discussions took place.”: I think this is the literary present, but given that he is dead, I’m not sure he can still be adamant. Perhaps these opinions should be in the past tense? ”Edgecombe was similarly violent and possessive; he and Gordon clashed violently on 27 October 1962, Edgecombe slashed his rival with a knife.”: Is there a word missing (such as “when”) after the semi-colon. Also, we have “violent … violently”. ”Her unexplained absence caused a press sensation;[67] every newspaper knew the rumours concerning Keeler with Profumo, but were afraid to report any direct connection; as a result of the Radcliffe inquiry they were, in Wigg's later words, "willing to wound but afraid to strike”.”: We have two semi-colons in the same sentence, which may be one too many. Above three points cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) ”Such statements are, by long-standing tradition, made on the particular honour of the member and are accepted by the House without question.”: Given the sorry state of British politics in later years, is this still the case? Indeed it is; a member's "personal statement" is still accepted as the unquestionable truth. Profumo broke a very strict taboo by lying in a personal statement; this particular convention holds as firmly as ever, even though lies are common currency in the House in general debates. Brianboulton (talk) ”On Tuesday 4 June Profumo saw the prime minister, confirmed that he had lied, and resigned from the government and from parliament.”: Did he still think he had been found out, or had something else rattled his cage? I find that I rather over-telescoped the sequence of events. I have now expanded a little. I guess that he either thought that he had been found out, or that he was about to be. Either way, he confessed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) A generally excellent read; I planned to do this in stages, but read the whole thing at once. Very interesting stuff; I'm a little too young to have been there first time around, but remember some of the revival of interest in the late 80s with the film. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, as always helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Comments from Cliftonian I read through this yesterday and found very little to quibble with—really excellent stuff as usual. I will try not to repeat anything Tim or Sarastro have already said; apologies if I do. Just a few thoughts: "Eugene", being a nickname, should really be in quotation marks, shouldn't it? (we don't give his actual name, Yevgeny, at all in the body of the article). I would put Captain Yevgeny "Eugene" Ivanov "Eugene" is an anglicization rather than a nickname, but I take the point and have made him Yevgeny in the main test. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Perhaps tweak the lead image caption slightly to make clear this is a relatively contemporary picture—John Profumo at his desk in 1960, as Secretary of State for War Done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) There are quite a lot of places where "Russian" is used rather than "Soviet"—I think a few usages of "Russian" would help to reduce awkward repetition, but we should really prefer the proper contemporary term "Soviet", in my opinion Agreed. There is only one "Russian" left in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Personnel" seems an odd choice for the section title; as if we're describing members of a military unit. Perhaps substitute "People" or similar, or perhaps just remove this and turn the level three subheaders ("Profumo", etc) into level two subheaders (I actually think the latter solution would perhaps be tidier) The "name" subsections are currently level four. I have tried them at level three, and I think this works. I agree that "Personnel" was a poor title; I struggled with it, but your solution avoids me having to find a substitute. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Keeler, Rice-Davis, Astor" perhaps "Keeler, Rice-Davis and Astor"? Done Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Perhaps mention Ward was English (mentioning he qualified in the U.S. might lead some to believe he was American); I think an unobtrusive way to do this would be to expand the first sentence of his section to "Stephen Ward, born in Hertfordshire in 1912 ..." Good idea - done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Perhaps mention the Slade School is in London (also check capitalisation of "School") Not necessary I think to mention that the Slade is in London, given the link and "in his spare time". The school's formal title is the Slade School of Fine Art. As "School" is part of the formal title I think capitalisation is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I would start the second paragraph in this section at "Ward hoped to visit the Soviet Union ..." Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) In the caption on "the scene of the notorious swimming-pool party", perhaps expand to "the notorious swimming-pool party where Profumo first met Keeler" Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "it is possible that Profumo hoped for a longer-term commitment and that he offered to set Keeler up in a flat" I would recommend giving more details as to where this suggestion comes from and on what reasoning The source gets the information from Keeler, hence the "it is possible". I have reworded, and cited it direct to Keeler's claim. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services" seems to me to imply that she was a prostitute. perhaps just "Profumo did not pay Keeler" Fair point, done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I hope these help. If I see anything else I will note them here. Well done again; I think this is already ready for FA myself. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your review, Except as indicated I have adopted your suggestions and thereby improved the article. It will around PR for a while yet, so if you do have further thoughts, please leave them here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Comments from SchroCat Beautifully put together, as always, and I struggle to find much in the way of fault. The following are particularly 'nit-picky', so accept or ignore as you see fit. "Profumo did not pay Keeler for her services, apart from a few small presents and once, a sum of £20 as a gift for her mother.[38]" It may just be me (probably is), but this does seem, in it current form, to suggest that the presents and £20 are payment for services. I've tinkered with this - I think it's better now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "information about nuclear weapon deployment". Should this be "weapon's deployment"? I've made it "the deployment of nuclear weapons" which reads better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "she entertained friends and perhaps clients": I think a little clarity may be needed here. As it reads, there is a suggestion of prostitution, but I don't think that's been suggested before. It has been suggested before, in the sentence you raised above: "Profumo did not pay Keeler...", etc. What she got up to in Dolphin Square is referred to ambiguously in the sources, which sort of hint that although she wasn't a prostitute in the accepted sense of the term, she sometimes got paid for sex. I have adopted the same slightly nuanced approach. If anyone wants to expand the Christine Keeler article (which I have recently tidied up) there is no doubt more to be said on this issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC) More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Continuing Only one more comment and a couple of minor ces made: feel free to revert if you don’t like 'em). "Telegraph's critic recommended the production as "sharp, funny – and, at times, genuinely touching"[168] Robertson records that..." A full stop or semi-colon after the 168 reference? All good and a worthy piece to cover the incident. I shied away from asking JP any questions on the two occasions I met him, and I'm always rather glad that I didn’t raise the spectre of it yet again for him. Please drop me a note when you take this to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Your ces are fine and I have dealt with the missing punc. Interesting that you met Profumo. I used to run into him from time to time on the Metropolitan Line in the late 70s and early 80s, when I was teaching at North London Poly and he was heading for Toynbee Hall. Never spoke to him, though. Thanks for your review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Drive-by comments from Bencherlite The lead says "The Criminal Cases Review Commission has requested that the verdict be referred to the Court of Appeal" when in fact all that has happened is that the CCRC has been been requested by campaigners to look at the case and refer it to the CA. My newspaper source quotes the government's spokesman, Lord Ahmad, as saying that the case "was being reviewed by the CCRC", which is not as far as I have indicated in the lead, but slightly further than you suggest. I have amended the wording accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The later wording, "In January 2014 the case was being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with a view to allowing an appeal" is potentially ambiguous, since one talks about the Court of Appeal "allowing" an appeal but here it's being used in the sense of the "the CCRC allowing an appeal to take place" i.e. to use their statutory powers to bring the matter before the Court. Perhaps "In January 2014 the case was being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has the power to investigate suspected miscarriages of justice and refer cases to the Court of Appeal." [1] is a basic ref for the CCRC's powers if you need one. I've adopted your wording, and added the explanatory ref. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) You link Geoffrey Robertson in the sources but not in the text. Linked Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Slightly off-topic, but the navbox gives the title as "The Profumo Affair" - if the lowercase version is thought best, then the navbox perhaps ought to be tweaked to follow. I find I can't edit the template. The "E" link goes to a page that says WP has no such template. I don't understand these things. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) BencherliteTalk 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for these most useful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC) No problem. I have fixed the template (the template is {{Profumo Affair}} but was calling itself "The Profumo Affair" in its code, hence making it uneditable from articles! BencherliteTalk 23:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 2 February 2014, 21:39 UTC) Ike Altgens Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone a lot of work since the last time it was a Featured Article, and it's far more comprehensive, more meticulously cited and devoid (once again) of POV. Naturally, the preceding statement represents my POV and I need fresh eyes. xD Thanks, —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 09:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Saturday 1 February 2014, 09:14 UTC) Dowding system I don't use PR much because I generally don't promote articles past DYK, and then move on. However, in this case the article seems to be historically important enough that I'd like to get it as close to perfect as we might manage. I think that my articles are generally B-quality out of the gate content wise, with a balance of detail without being overwhelming. But at the same time, I'm perfectly aware that I forget to explain some items, get drawn off into technical minutiae, and use some rather odd phrasing. I also have a rather aggressive spell checker that sometimes replaces one word for another, things I never notice. Slings and arrows gratefully accepted! (really? that's how you spell gratefully?!) Thanks, Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Comments. Hi Maury, I recommend running this through MilHist's A-class review when you're done here. Here are a few copyediting comments: - Dank (push to talk) "prior to": Copyeditors (BrEng, AmEng, all flavors of Eng) deprecate this phrase these days in favor of "before" (usually). I could give you my guess why that is, but it would just be a guess. In this case, substitute "before" for "prior to the opening of". "Chain Home": Most readers will have to either click through or read ahead to know that you're talking about radar stations. I'd go with "the Chain Home (CH) radar stations" "a single unified map": a unified map "to produce a single unified map of the battlespace, and then relayed that information out to the various defensive weapons like interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery.": Tighter would be: to provide a unified map of the battlespace to interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery. "The Dowding system evolved": The word "evolve" didn't start off as simply a synonym of "develop" (though it seems to be headed that way); it still properly connotes an uncontrolled or chaotic process. It's sometimes misused to give an impression that no one was pulling any strings, that a process was allowed to proceed without any interference ... but this is rarely true where militaries are involved. "early radar": If you take my advice to include "radar" above, then don't link it here. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) This is excellent stuff Dank, just the sort of thing I was looking for! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Happy to help, I'll sit back and wait for other comments. Btw, you can do WP:GAN before A-class if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 29 January 2014, 14:11 UTC) Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate this article for GA in the near future. Prior I would like some constructive feedback and suggestions on how to improve it so that it doesn't raise major concerns at GAN. Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Friday 24 January 2014, 07:44 UTC) Gambrinus I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear ideas for ways to improve its value and interest for readers, and to hear objective criticism about shortcomings to overcome in order to make it a GA. Thanks, Ringbang (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Saturday 18 January 2014, 23:05 UTC) House of Plantagenet Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because it is a Good Article but failed to progress to a Featured Article. Since reaching good article status it has gone quiet on the editing front. It would be good to refresh it and resubmit. The fundamental challenge (as with all House of/dynasty articles) is differentiating between content about the House and content about their impact. I think the Plantagenets made England by their actions good and bad and their inactions and this belongs in this article. Others disagree on the basis the article should be about the family. So an impartial review would be good. Help, please :-) Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Lead comments from Nikkimaria Some duplicate linking going on - for example, the houses of Lancaster and York are both linked twice in just the lead "comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey" - this comes before you explain which Geoffrey you're talking about "Richard III's death in 1485 (at the Battle of Bosworth)" - parentheses aren't needed "From Magna Carta onward, the role of kingship transformed under the Plantagenet—driven by weakness to make compromises that constrained their power in return for financial and military support" - this is rather awkward as written "was to help shape a distinct national identity and re-established the use of English" - why the shift in tense? "from a realm ruled from abroad, into one of a deeply engaged and mature kingdom" - grammar Churchill quote should be followed by colon or other punctuation, not a semi-colon "development of Early modern Britain" - why that capitalization? Based on the lead, I would suggest a thorough copy-editing and WP:MOS check for the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Been added to the list for ce, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 15 January 2014, 13:10 UTC) Geography and places Upton, Merseyside I've listed this article for peer review because… I've given the article a major re-edit and expansion, over the last few days. The page is now longer than the one for nearby Birkenhead, which is a much larger place. Thanks, EP111 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 5 February 2014, 17:50 UTC) Engineering and technology Clackline Bridge I've listed this article for peer review because I would like another set (or sets) of eyes to look over it before I nominate it for FA. Comments regarding any aspect of the FA criteria or general copyediting would be appreciated. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 03:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Monday 27 January 2014, 03:43 UTC) Stockton and Darlington Railway I've listed this article for peer review because it's about the Stockton and Darlington Railway, the world's first public railway that used steam locomotives. It opened in 1825, and this has been celebrated every fifty years. I would like to get this to FA. Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Comments from Tim riley First lot of comments, to the end of Genesis section: Origins "Quaker Edward Pease supported it" – not clear why it is relevant that Pease was a Quaker. The Quakers are quite proud of their involvement. In the Quaker Tapestry, Panel D7 "Railways" begins with the text "Quaker Enterprise and the Early Railways" and mentions Edward Pease. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC) That they were Quakers is mentioned in all the sources. I remember something in Kirby about this, and I'm picking a copy up from the library tomorrow, so perhaps I can answer your question by adding something to the article. Edgepedia (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I've started the book — that they were Quakers was important as 1/3 of the finance came from non-local Quakers; eg the Gurneys of Norwich invested £20,000. I will hopefully have something coherent by tomorrow morning. Edgepedia (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Lord Eldon's estate and one of the Earl of Darlington's" – seems odd to call the Earl of Eldon "Lord Eldon" when the other earl has his title given in full. Changed as suggested Edgepedia (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) George Stephenson "a practicable line could be built" – not sure about "practicable" here. Plans and schemes can be practicable, but I don't think a line can. Perhaps "viable"? "after Stephenson had failed to do so" – to do what? Design the bridge, or appoint Bonomi? Will rephrase Edgepedia (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Done so [2] and [3]. Edgepedia (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Early operations "Nevertheless, by August 1827" – not sure why "Nevertheless". "due to the safety values being left fixed down" – "valves" I imagine, but I didn't like to assume "They were made compulsory" – by whom? Parliament? Changes here. Edgepedia (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC) More to come. Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Second batch Railway improvements "This had led to horses startled by a passing locomotive and coming off their dandy cart being run down by the following train" – I took three goes to get the meaning of this. May I suggest a comma after "horses" and another after "cart"? "After buying out the coach companies" – this is a dangling participle, and would be better as "After the S&DR bought out the coach companies" Great North of England Railway Last line – the River Tyne needs its definite article, I think Cleveland iron ore "to exclude the railway from the foreshore" – this puzzles me. The foreshore is the land below mean high and mean low water, so what would a railway be doing there, when the land was covered in water every high tide? ["Cockermouth, Keswick & Penrith Railway" – I pause to shed a tear here: my family's home is near Keswick, and I still pine for the railway connection to Penrith decades after it closed.] Progress and amalgamation Hartlepool – has a blue link here, but it's already had one earlier "deciding they preferred a merger" – this is tricky, but elsewhere you refer to the company in the singular. "Deciding it preferred" would look strange, so perhaps "the directors deciding that they preferred"? More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Changes here, except the 'foreshore' one, which word I think I got from the source. Will read up and see how I can expand it (once at the foreshore they could build a jetty etc...) Edgepedia (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC) So they could. Sorry, my brain was off the hook. Tim riley (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Expanded with "the Upsall, Normanby & Ormesby Railway received permission for a line with access to the river, the S&DR claim of exclusive rights to the foreshore rejected". Edgepedia (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Last lot Anniversary celebrations "Locomotion No.1 propelled by its tender and more modern locomotives" – ambiguous. I imagine it was only the tender doiing the propelling. A comma after No 1 and another after tender will make this clear. "procession of locomotives was completed" – either lose the "was" or make it "which was", I think. Done these two Legacy "The local councils wish to introduce" – this is going to get very out of date unless you or another editor will keep an eye on it. It needs a citation in any event, and if you can find one that quotes a council view you can get round the problem by saying "So and So Council stated in 2013 that…" "The current phase involves…" Again, you'll need to keep this up to date, and to be honest I don't think you'll get it through FAC with so many statements that have a sell-by date. Again, "X announced in 2013 that the plan was…" will get you out of the corner. See WP:EPHEMERAL. I'll come back to this "An Hitachi" – "A Hitachi"? I think this depends on how you pronounce it; I'm sure Hitachi have a preference, but I've have been able to find this. I've changed it. "an annex of the National Railway Museum" – slightly odd word. Annex suggests something attached to an existing building, rather than an outpost. I can't find in which source I saw annex; anyway changed it to "part of" The National Railway Museum Shildon no longer uses the word "annex" on its website, although it has done in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC) My dictionary defines Annex (in this context) as "annexe or exp. US annex ... a building used as an addition to a main one nearby". As Shildon is 62 miles from York, it probably is the wrong word. Edgepedia (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "coal drops that are listed buildings" – as this is a non-defining clause it would be better as "coal drops, which are…" There are a few earlier "thats" in non-defining clauses, where "which" would be more usual, but this is the only one that seems to me to disrupt the flow of your prose. done Notes Note 3 – careful with "refute" – it means to disprove something, not just to dispute it. Thanks. Changed to challenge Note 5 – The Illustrated London News should be italicised, I think. There seems to be a word missing in the last sentence, e.g. saying that the drawing… Thanks, I'd lost the verb Note 8 – "today": WP:EPHEMERAL again. Better to say "in 2014" or whenever your reference date is. Thanks. Seeing I created the {{Inflation-year}} template, I guess I'd better use it. Note 9 – Given that John Wesley is a famous name in a quite different context I think you need to give your John Wesley his surname; you could then call the earlier man just "Timothy". Done Note 10 – I'd lose the full stop in the book title Done That's all I have. A fine piece of research, most readably put together, with impressive images. If you take it to FAC please let me know. – Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks Tim! I do enjoy finding the images for these article. Edgepedia (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC) And hopefully this fixes the (several) issues around the current plans for the line. Thank you again. Edgepedia (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 26 January 2014, 07:19 UTC) National Security Agency I've listed this article for peer review because we are having a featured article drive. Thanks, Jehochman Talk 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 22 January 2014, 23:15 UTC) Natural sciences and mathematics Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis I've recently expanded this page to comply with WP:MEDMOS, and significantly expanded the content and references. I feel it's a bit too complicated for the average reader, particularly 'Diagnosis' and 'Treatment'. I would appreciate input and changes from those who feel they can reduce the complexity of the page, along with any other changes you feel are important. Thanks, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 5 February 2014, 15:43 UTC) Xenon monochloride I've listed this article for peer review because… 1. It is a translation from a french wikipedia article. I need a proofreader to go through it. 2. Also, I need that it be reviewed for acceptability in wikipedia english articles. Thanks, Emekadavid (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I have been editing this to make it a bit less verbose. French is a bit verbose, but it makes good sense when mapped to English. However it can be shrunken somewhat by saying things in a different way. Also the style using "we" or "one" or "notice" is not appropriate here, so I have gradually been removing this language. One issue is the excessive detail discussing each measurement. In fact this is more like a review article than an encyclopedia entry. For a measurement on one of the states myself I would pick the most likely value and mention it along with the reference, rather than presenting a table of every measurement, along with a discussion about what is good. This discussion about which measurements are in or out of consideration is really original research, unless it comes from some other author. It looks here as if the writer has been the originator of the ideas in the discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 19 January 2014, 19:35 UTC) Olfactory reference syndrome Rationale for peer review request: this is a psychiatric disorder and I am not a psychiatrist, neither do I have any real experience editing articles that are about psychiatric disorders, Previously a short "start" class article, I have promoted to B class now perhaps I would like to take this article to GAN next. N.B. there were very limited secondary and tertiary sources available which met WP:MEDRS, most info is in the form of case reports & I have tried to avoid these wherever possible. We have 4 reviews (2 calling themselves systematic) and 1 book chapter that are used extensively to form the basis of the article. I believe there are one or 2 primary sources to support some very obvious content that I felt was required, but could not find any secondary source for. Given the paucity of sources, I took the liberty of extending MEDDATE to about 10 years (or more in a few cases) instead of last 5 years. Have used the MEDMOS layout for diseases, disorders and syndromes. Not sure if this is the norm for psych articles, and not sure it is entirely appropriate for this condition. Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 14 January 2014, 18:14 UTC) Recurrent laryngeal nerve I've listed this article for peer review because Novangelis and I are trying to get this article to GA status, and would like some feedback on the article as it stands in preparation for a review, perhaps from the wonderful Finetooth or any other charitable souls? Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Finetooth comments: LeadY Done I would expand the lead (lede) to include a brief summary of the lower three sections of the article. For an article of this length, a lead of two or three paragraphs would be typical. "gives cardiac branches" – "Gives" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Would "extends to" or "includes" be better? Expanded and reworded. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Development Y Done "Arches 4 and 6 produce the laryngeal cartilages." – Link laryngeal cartilages or, since this link is to a disambiguation page, list and link all of the laryngeal cartilages thus: "Arches 4 and 6 produce the laryngeal cartilages: the arytenoid, cricoid, thyroid cartilages and the epiglottis." In saying this, however, I note once again that I have no expertise in anatomy, and it may be that the epiglottis does not belong in the list since the article about the epiglottis lists "hypobranchial eminence" as a precursor rather than "4th and 6th branchial arch". Perhaps "hypobranchial eminence" is incorrect, though, or imprecise; it is flagged in the epiglottis article as relying on a possibly unreliable source. Not sure. Have rewritten this section, and hopefully this will now make sense. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Other disease Y Done "a rare cause of left RLN palsy" – Link to palsy in Wiktionary or to something else in Wikipedia, perhaps bulbar palsy? Clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) In animals Y Done Since "wheezing sound" is linked to stridor in the dog paragraph in this subsection, perhaps "sound", which is linked to stertorous, should be written as "heavy gasping sound" in the horse paragraph. "when middle-aged dogs are breathing in" – Slightly tighter would be "when middle-aged dogs inhale". Single-sentence paragraphs tend to be deprecated. Could something more about dogs be added? Are any particular breeds more susceptible than others? "In the vertebrates with the longest necks, the sauropod dinosaurs, the nerve length would have been... " – Should "the nerve" be more specific here? I assume this means the left recurrent laryngeal nerve rather than the sum of both left and right. Or perhaps this includes the length of the vagus nerve as well. Not sure. Thanks, we inherited this paragraph from a previous editor. Have clarified and made the formatting of symptoms consistent throughout the article. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Evidence of evolution Y Done "The extreme detour of this nerve... ". – Same question here. Should "this nerve" be made more specific? "fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods" – Link tetrapod? Resolved. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) References Y Done Generally, Wikipedia uses its own house style for book and article titles even if the reliable sources use other styles. Inconsistency in the style could raise eyebrows at FAC, perhaps at GAN as well. Citations 24 and 25 illustrate the difference. Citation 25 is in Wikipedia style, uppercase for the main words and lowercase for the little connector words. To make citation 24 conform, I would change the chapter title to read: "11. History Written All Over Us" and the book title to read "The Greatest Show on Earth". Ditto for all similar situations. Come to think of it, I might not have mentioned these nitpicks in relation to Stapes and Foramen spinosum, but they would apply there as well unless individual project guidelines take precedence. Some of the book citations, such as citation 24, include the place of publication, and some, like citation 27, do not. It's best to include the place of publication for all of the books. Citation 15 lacks the name of the publisher. Citation 12 has an "edit" link at the end of the citation. I don't know what that's for. The 'edit' is, I think, inserted automatically. Have neatened two citations; will give them a check-over before nomination. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Additional images Y Done Should anything be linked in this caption: "The right sympathetic chain and its connections with the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic plexuses"? Sympathetic chain perhaps? And plexus maybe? Since File:Rekurrens.png is used already in the "Clinical significance" section, I would delete it from the "Additional images" section. Done. Removed all images, they did not improve the article's quality or readability. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) External links Y Done The link to "Example of Vocal Cord Paralysis" returns a "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable" message when clicked. Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I hope this helps. Please ping me if any of my comments don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks again for your detailed review and copyediting. We'll (myself, Novangelis and perhaps others) will get to work on the article over the next week. --LT910001 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC) More Consider adding inline citation to lead. Can almost guarantee that if I do this we will get a reviewer who states that this should never happen =P. The in-text citations cover what has been written here. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) FYI, if anyone has previously asked you to remove inline citation from the lead, they were wrong. Lead should always have inline citation as far as I read the MOS... Lesion (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, the counter-argument that I've seen used on GA nominations is that the lead is supposed to be in summary style etc. At any rate these are well-cited in text and shouldn't be a problem. Anything you're working on at the moment that could do with some extra eyes/hands? --LT910001 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I realized I was not entirely sure on this point, so I asked at the help desk. WP:CITELEAD has this to say: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." so I think you are correct here, apologies. Lesion (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Could File:Laryngeal nerve.jpg be vectorized? It looks a bit pixelated, if that is the right word. See here: [4]. They will probably do this for you nicely at the graphics lab: [5] Tbanks, have left a request on the page. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Probably irrelevant trivia, but what impact does situs inversus have on the recurrent laryngeal nerves? Not too sure of the statistics (this itself is very rare), but it makes a non-recurrent left nerve much more likely. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) In one picture caption, the word struma is used. Is Goiter not the more common term? Lesion (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Done. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks Lesion, frustratingly my internet access is quite limited at the moment, so I might not be able to make timely changes to the article. That said, these will eventually get addressed =P --LT910001 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Conclusion Finetooth and Lesion, Thanks again to you both; I feel this article is ready for a nomination, so have closed the review and marked for GA nomination. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 7 January 2014, 00:32 UTC) General Bonnie Tyler Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how far away the article is from Good Article status. I have been working on the article for years and want to get cracking on neatening up the flaws. If you look back over a few years you'll see its transformation. Feedback on how you find the article (particularly in the 1970s to 80s section, which I have been working on the most) would be much appreciated. Thanks, Bonnietylersave (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 4 February 2014, 15:36 UTC) Kurt Cobain I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how to improve the article before nominating it for good article status. I'd be thankful for any feedback Thanks, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 4 February 2014, 15:21 UTC) Earthless discography This is an experimental page of sorts. I've never seen a page like this before and took the initiative of possibly introducing it. My first such page was Scale the Summit discography. It is my belief that these albums are notable but there's not enough to go around to fill-out a complete article on any of these individual subjects. Yes, I am aware that From the Ages looks like it could be split-off into its own article, but try to remember, as its own article it would look underdone and appear to omit details (it doesn't, but without looking into the sources or trying to scare-up more one cannot be sure of this). My overall take on the article is that it's pretty much done. Here are a few issues I know might exist with it: There's probably always some sort of improvement to be made to the lead paragraph. We no doubt need a photograph of the band in the same section. Sonic Prayer has received little attention in mainstream media; I have found a few, shall we say, alternative resources that I wish I could use but am unable to at this time. Rhythms from a Cosmic Sky is practically done, may just need a touch-up or two. Live at Roadburn has only what I would see at the moment to be an incomplete touring history following its release. I, however, cannot substantiate with sources anything that's missing. On that note, I have wanted to write in the touring history for both of the first two albums but have been unable to find anything. I absolutely would if I had anything, though. From the Ages is practically complete unless something new turns up. As I would see it, that is all that needs to be fixed... but then again that's why I'm here: Can anyone else take a look at this and help me see what's missing? Could it possibly be ready to go for GA or FL status (I'm more certain it is a list and as such the next step would be the FL)? Thanks, LazyBastardGuy 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Monday 3 February 2014, 21:56 UTC) Ezra Pound Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I've lost perspective and it needs looking at before deciding whether to take to FAC. It's a long page, so huge thanks in advance to the person who does the review! Thanks, Victoria (tk), SlimVirgin, Ceoil 23:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Feedback from Curly Turkey I may or may not come back to do a fuller review (too busy this week), but I noticed some things: <troll>The article desperately needs an infobox.</troll> I left during the the arb case and when I came back I promised myself to stay away from i-box discussions for at least 6 months. I'm not thick-skinned enough for it, and would like to stick to that rule. That said, I think this is an article that might eventually be worth discussing in a calm, civil, manner and I'd probably invite other editors who've not edited the article to participate. Next summer maybe? Or in a year or so? Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (I think somebody missed the "troll" tags) Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I think MOS:ALLCAPS requires Pound's obnoxious use of ALLCAPS to be emphasized some other way (italics?) I've shrunk them. Prefer to keep rather than changing quoted text and as your comment shows, they give a glimpse of the man. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) A number of paragraphs begin with "he"—I don't think that's a very good style. Same for headings such as "Books published in his lifetime". Made preliminary pass to weed these out - still needs a bit more, but thanks for mentioning. That's useful. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) File:Hdpoet.jpg—if this was published before 1923, then it's in the public domain in the US. That means it doesn't need a Fair Use Rationale, though it may not be eligible to be uploaded to Commons (as Europe doesn't have that 1923 rule). Wikipedia's servers are in the US, so only US law applies here. Almost certainly pre-1923, but the Beinecke file lacks a date. The image has been removed from the article at least once, but was published as a postcard and I believe this is one of the images we did have approved by a copyright expert some years ago. I need to find those discussions, but if memory serves, in the end we decided on the FUR. I might contact the Beinecke at some point in regards to a couple of other images (the modernists are difficult in terms of images) and will keep this in mind. Thanks for mentioning. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "transatlantic review": needs to be capitalized, even if not styled that way (see MOS:TM) Yes, it has an article now, so I've linked. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "Controversial friendships, release": release from ...? "Scholarship": I'd assumed this meant scholarship by Pound. Very useful comment - it's a new section and still finding its place. I've tweaked a little for the moment, but need to do a bit more work there I think. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The "Further reading" section is quite (gratuitously?) long, and I might separate out things like the link to Gutenberg into an "External links" section. And, I mean, seriously, Italian works on Pound? "Further reading" isn't meant to be an exhaustive list. See comment below. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "User-friendly editions" seems like an odd way to refer to books I've trimmed out the "External links" (and thanks for the reminder!). I think here, you're referring to the "Works" section? I wouldn't mind moving back to the bibliography page, keeping some "Selected works" on the bio page, but don't want to make a unilateral decisions without agreement. Awaiting opinion from SV and Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC) ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for these Curly Turkey - some good points here. Will be working through slowly. Victoria (tk) 17:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Friday 31 January 2014, 23:37 UTC) Jon Mamoru Takagi Hi, thanks for reviewing this page! 1. This is my first article, and I'd like general feedback on the form and content. 2. There are few Wikipedia articles on Martial Artists, and I have not seen a consistent format. Any suggestions on a good example? 3. Any suggestions on content to specifically include or exclude on the biography of a martial artist? 3. I think that the "Notable Students" section is helpful to establishing a lineage of martial arts teaching, even though not all students listed may meet the notability guidelines. Thoughts? Thanks, Joe Shuri (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Brianboulton comments: Hi. I see that this is your first article. There are some useful hints about writing WP articles to be found on the WP:DEV page - have you consulted this? There are quite a few WP articles on martial arts (mainly judo and sumo) which have reached "Good Article" standard. Here are some that you might find useful: Kenshiro Abbe Kanō Jigorō Mitsuyo Maeda Yamashita Yoshiaki These will give you some idea of the work necessary to bring your article up to a good standard. At present, your article is rather sketchy and largely unsourced. You need to do further research, to identify sources that will enable you to amplify the content. It might be worthwhile to find out who has been recently active in writing articles in this area and see if any are prepared to offer help. Or why not contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts? You could leave a message on the project's talk page, asking for help. I hope you find these suggestions useful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 29 January 2014, 22:58 UTC) David Portnoy I've listed this article for peer review because I just want to get some eyes on it. Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Normally articles are broken into sections to make long stretches of text easier to navigate. This article is so short that the sections are unnecessary—everything could easily be put into a single paragraph (so that the "lead" is the "body"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 28 January 2014, 21:23 UTC) Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 I've listed this article for peer review because the topic and music of this early inspired cantata by Bach was dear to the heart of the composer and is to mine. I want the article to be as good as possible. I am not sure if "arts" is the right classification, - it seemed closest of those offered. Thanks for improvements and suggestions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Comments from Tim riley Nothing much to add. The article is clear, judiciously laid out and its author's enthusiasm for the piece shines out of the page! Some very minor drafting points: Lead "Bach noted an unusual repeat" – I think this should be Bach "specified" or "stipulated" an unusual repeat Background "Bach applied successfully for the position, but declined" – If, as I suppose, this means that he changed his mind, I think it would be clearer to say something like, "Bach applied successfully for the position, but decided not to take it up." Third para - "enjoyed" comes twice in quick succession. Scoring and structure "In the Weimar version, Bach noted after the chorale Chorus repetatur ab initio, to repeat the opening chorus" – another "noted" that I don't think is quite right. I'd rejig the sentence as something on the lines of "In the Weimar version, after the chorale Chorus repetatur ab initio, Bach called for a repeat of the opening chorus" Music Musicologist Julian Mincham – This is one the bees in my bonnet: in good BrEnglish one writes "The musicologist Julian Mincham". Omitting the definite article is fine in American English, but in British usage it is the province of tabloid papers. I know I'm fighting a losing battle on this, but I continue to fight nonetheless. That's all I can find to suggest. It's a lovely article. – Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Tim! I think I got it all in, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Comments from Brianboulton Lead only, for the moment: The English rendering of the title requires "O Songs" not "o songs" No, it doesn't, only if the English is a title itself. (It isn't. There were many discussions of this topic) What is the authority for your assertion? I have never seen this form before. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC) The latest discussion was this. That discussion is about translating foreign titles. My issue is one of format, not translation, namely that in English usage the vocative "O" is invariably capitalised. "O songs" would be OK, but not "o songs". Scroll through any number of hymnals, biblical texts, poetry anthologies etc, and you will find this to be the case. Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Now I understand, sorry. However, the source given does not capialise. For a compromise, I now use a different translation. Problem: it is more interested in the number of syllables than the exact wording. The year of composition should be given in the first sentence, as well as date of first performance How would I do that, without a never-ending sentence? The lead for the c. 200 Bach cantatas should be similar, no? The date of performance is in the infobox (and the second sentence), composition time is never so clear for Bach, parts may have bee, composed earlier. Who is "Nicolai"? Was it Philipp Nicolai? If so give full name and link. If not, give full name and a brief description I would give full name and link, if the hymn didn't have a link (which would lead anybody who doesn't know to the author). I heard "sea of blue" on other occasions, but am ready to discuss. You need the link in the lead. Most people with musical knowledge (e.g. me) think of "Nicolai" as the composer of The Merry Wives of Windsor. Forget the "sea of blue" argument; that only relates to overlinking of generally familiar terms. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I follow, reluctantly. What will "festively scored" convey to the general reader? tried "Bach noted an unusual repeat of the opening chorus after the chorale " – what does "Bach noted..." mean? Changed, see above, "Bach performed the cantata later as Thomaskantor in Leipzig several times, in revisions sometimes in a different key and with partly different scoring, as a work that he particularly valued." This sentence is awkwardly expressed. I suggest something like: "Bach particularly valued this work. While serving as Thomaskantor (musical director) in Leipzig after 1723 he performed it several times, sometimes in a different key, and with changes in the scoring". The value thing is a conclusion, can't come first. It may work the other way round. I don't understand your reply. The present form of the sentence is not only awkward but could mislead; it sounds as if Thomaskantor is an alternative title to the work, rather than the post that Bach held. I had to struggle to understand this; a person with little musical knowledge will struggle more. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC) I don't understand your reply, because the version you saw is not the "present" version. I took your wording, only wanted to explain why the several performances are mentioned first, the appreciation second, as concluded from the unusually many repeats we know. Reading on, will post more. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Thank you, Brian, I took some and look forward to more discussion. Probably you can help to word the lead better after reading more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC) More stuff: Background "...during his tenure in Mühlhausen". Dates would be useful here added (for the general reader) What is the "court capelle" tried "in 1711 to 1713" → "in the period from 1711 to 1713" Y "he was asked to apply..." By whom? The source doesn't say by whom he was invited, - it would be OR to say that the initiative came from the church. I will try to look for a different source. "a position" – close repetition Y "an honour which included a monthly performance..." Not clear; does this mean "giving a monthly performance"? tried "Conditions were favourable..." Do you mean "Circumstances were favourable"? And can you clarify what they were favourable for? "Circumstances" taken without pomp ;) - 3 following: space, musicians, poet "In Weimar, Bach composed using Franck's texts; ..." Colon, not semicolon, and would be better as "Works based on Franck's texts which Bach composed in Weimar include: ..." Taken with thanks so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Occasion and words What is the special nature of a "high holiday" in the Catholic church? The link article only refers to Jewish holidays. (Catholic???) There is no link article, the three high holidays are all mentioned with a link, what else do you think is needed for this specific cantata (that is not in List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function )? For Leipzig, I could tell you that they are all celebrated on three days, but I don't know if it was the same in Weimar. "the series in Weimar" → "the Weimar series" Y Present wording implies that the "Holy Spirit" is a book from the bible along with Acts and John's Gospel. You could repunctuate and clarify: "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Acts of the Apostles (the coming of the Holy Spirit, Ch. 2:1–13), and from the Gospel of John, where Jesus announces in his Farewell discourse..." etc tried "Bach first performed the cantata on 20 May 1714..." One man can't have performed the cantata. Thus: "The cantata was first performed on 20 May 1714, with Bach probably playing first violin himself..." etc. Also, later: "Bach performed the cantata again..." Is there a way in English without the passive voice? A cantata is not performed, it's people performing it, and (at least in German) often the conductor is seen as the one who shapes it enough to be the only one mentioned. Learning. (And tried.) "obviously" falls under WP:PEACOCK and must be deleted. done, but how to say that it can be derived from the many repetitions and his work on it over the years that he appreciated it? From whom do the words "particularly valued" and "a pattern for his later approaches to the Pentecostal theme" originate? Gardiner, now mentioned. (I will think about mentioning the Pilgrimage here already.) Taken with thanks so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Scoring and structure Again the unexplained "festive" but explained now In the table, the "Time" column will confuse (perhaps a little less if it was headed "Tempo", but not much). Non-musical readers won't have a clue what it means, especially the common-time symbol. I don't think this column is necessary, and I would remove it. It's a standard feature, see Messiah Part I, II, III. I provided the link nowand explained the symbol. ("Tempo" would be "Adagio" etc, but it doesn't appear at the beginning of movements in this cantata.) Music The one-sentence summary that begins the section is too much to take in without a pause. It needs breaking up: How about: "The text opens with praise. It then concentrates on a line from the Gospel, before an address to the Holy Trinity. It continues by referring to the Spirit that was present at the Creation, before moving to a dialogue of the Soul and the Spirit and concluding with a stanza from Nicolai's joyful hymn." I will think about it and listen to others. The sequence from the general to the intimate seems to get lost in the repetition of "continues" and others. Actually, it doesn't continue, - just where you say "continues" is a sharp contrast between the three trumpets and the following gentle strings. - I would like to provide an overview before the details, but am no sure how to do it best. "In the Weimar first version, the key of the first movements is C major, the fourth is A minor (a third lower), the following two F major (again a third lower)." Before the table you say that "The keys are given for the Weimar version", so why is it necessary to repeat the keys here? Also, phrases like "a third lower" will be meaningless to many readers. Please help improving. Every reader should get the idea of "lower", whether a third or not. It's a concept that goes together with the scoring, both towards the more intimate. ("came down from heaven" comes to mind.) "A print of Franck's works..." English usage is "A printing" rather than "A print", which generally refers to a picture rather than a text. Y Franck is listed in the table as the text source, but here you say only that an earlier work of Franck's "may have served as a model". Besides which, this section is supposed to be about the music rather than the source of the text. No contradiction that Franck's earlier secular text may have served as a model for Franck's later text, more important: a (possible earlier) composition of the secular text may have served as a model for the sacred music. Better wording? You need to explain what you mean by "in de Capo form". The WP article da Capo is of little use. I think the article da capo should be improved then. The idea of an article like that is that not every article referring to it needs to explain again, no? "coloraturas" needs a link Y What is the meaning of the parenthetical (C2)? dropped, because it is explained twice afterwards "shows also three sections": do you mean "also contains three sections"? And, what is a "triple meter", and is the American spelling "meter" deliberate? fixed The second part of 4. is uncited is cited now "Gardiner, who reflected the season of Pentecost after about half of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage with his Monteverdi Choir..." Not clear what this is about. When and where was this pilgrimage, and was does "reflected" mean in this context? How much of the linked Pilgrimage needs to be repeated here? In 2000, all sacred cantatas within a year following liturgical sequence in historic places of mostly Europe. He wrote reflections. A general point: you use quite a lot of quoted phrases, but it is often not clear whose words they are. Direct quotations should uusually be aattributed as well as cited; it is sometimes more convenient to paraphrase. For me, it is very difficult to paraphrase, not knowing equivalent words well enough. I use quotes from the text referenced at the end of a sentence. Should I repeat "Hofmann wrote" etc? Could you rephrase? Overall, I can't fault the content, but the presentation needs a good deal more polishing. I have included some suggestions in my review as to how the prose might be clarified. It is important to bear in mind that you are writing for a general readership, not a music magazine, which means among other things a greater level of explanation of terms than you might normally expect to give. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Many terms are treated in the linked "Bach cantata" and other linked articles. Let us find the amount of explanation necessary to follow this particular one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Monday 27 January 2014, 13:16 UTC) Shades of Deep Purple I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded the content and improved the references, but I need language advice for the tone and grammar I used and also on the coherence of all the sections with the subject. Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 26 January 2014, 20:38 UTC) New Brunswick Theological Seminary I'd like to propose this article at FAC in the next few months. After a comprehensive GA review by two experienced editors that whipped this article into great shape, I'd like several opinions on how the article can be improved to bring it to that next step. I am grateful for your suggestions. Many thanks, --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 22 January 2014, 20:12 UTC) Joan Rivers I've listed this article for peer review because… She may be ready to become featured. Thanks, Theparties (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC) The lead needs to be expanded to properly summarize the article. Hekerui (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Feedback from Bonnietylersave The lead could me 'meated' out a little. Without making it look like advertising or promotion, might be nice to add coverage of what Joan's been doing recently (with the Joan & Melissa show and her online show, for example. Maybe the DVD she released? I'm familiar with her work, just now how significant it was, so I'll leave you to judge what the most significant parts of her career are in recent years). It also needs to, as Hekerui said, summarize the article. References: I think based on references, the article probably isn't quite ready for FA status, but by all means gear your guns to aim for a GA status for the time being. Actual cite formatting doesn't seem to be an issue, but some of the "retrieved" dates are in different formats. For example, one says "Retrieved July 6, 2013" and another "2011-11-25." It'd look neater to have them all written out in the same way. Another nit-picking thing - based on scanning up and down the article, there's not a lot of references, only 54. Perhaps a bit OCD, but as I read over GA and FA articles, they usually have at least over 100 as long as there is enough reference resources online about the concerned subject. Section: "2000–present": There are a few un-sourced sentences that you might need to go over, such as When her TV shows are mentioned, or stage performances, etc, it'd be a good idea to add some critical reaction to end off the sections. Personal life: Not 'fan cruft' at all, relevant, non-trivial topics only. Definitely a strength! Awards and nominations: definitely needs references (this might be part of what'll stack up the number of references in the article). Sourcing the Theater work, Television work and Films sections might also be required. Also - it might be nice to find some more bullet points for the 'Honors' sub-section. The images used seem fine - no copyright issues. Hope I was of help. Any questions or anything, come to me. I'd love to oversee the article's development. Bonnietylersave (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Wednesday 22 January 2014, 06:59 UTC) Wayne Rooney Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to make it a GA but it went in vain. So I want someone to guide me to achieve the goal. Thanks, RRD13 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Tuesday 21 January 2014, 03:29 UTC) Médecins de nuit I've listed this article for peer review because… 1. It was just translated from another french article of the same name. 2. A peer review would help me see the faults in the article and help improve on it. Thanks, Emekadavid (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Just a few thoughts about the article. The translation is fine, with very few glitches: "7 September", of which year? "then rebroadcast later" --> "broadcast again" "work at night during an emergency" --> "work by night at an emergency ward" The article now is little more than a stub. I never watched this TV series, but besides learning that it is a medical drama and is set in Paris, very little can be taken from the article. It needs major expansions for plotlines and characters. The list of actors is fine, but which roles are they playing in the series? Doctors, nurses, patients? Producers, composer and directors are often internationally known people and there is much info about them on the French Wikipedia. Instead of simply linking their names to that Wiki, I think that it would be better to share some knowledge about them on the article, if only as a hint. Peter Kassovitz, director of the movies..., Hervé Chabalier, journalist and TV writer, etc. Being this the English Wiki, a comparison could also be made with similar British and American medical dramas, like General Hospital or ER. Which is the tone of the show? Dramatic and action-packed or light-hearted and funny? Is it more like Scrubs or more like House? There is a lot of work to be done, probably only by doing some research on French websites or watching the original series. Have fun! Lewismaster (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 19 January 2014, 20:06 UTC) The Simpsons (franchise) I've listed this article for peer review because I want to help this article get from a B-class to a GA-class. Thanks, (t) Josve05a (c) 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Friday 17 January 2014, 23:42 UTC) Nevill Ground Previous peer review I've listed this article for peer review because I was considering taking this for FA in the future. I know there are a few areas that will need filling but I would like some feedback on what is currently in the article and what might be needed to be included for any future FA consideration. Thanks, The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Feedback from Curly Turkey I don't know anything about cricket (actually, I don't know much about sports). Feel free to larf at any of the silly things I might have to say. The History section moves rather quickly—did nothing remarkable happen between the two world wars? Or between 1946 and 1995? Unless you have a really good reason, it's not a good idea to set image sizes—it overrides user settings for one, and if you've chosen a particular size because it happens to look good on your screen, it will almost certainly not look nearly so nice on a different screen size or screen orientation. rather than [[cricket]] [[List of cricket grounds in England and Wales|venue]], I'd do [[List of cricket grounds in England and Wales|cricket venue]]. "Cricket" itself may be overlinking, and it's a bit surprising for the general word venue to link to something so specific. "is used by Tunbridge Wells CC as well as annually": on first reading, this reads as "is used by Tunbridge Wells CC as well" (as in "also Tunbridge Wells CC")—I had to read it twice to make sense of it. How about something like: "is used primarily by Tunbridge Wells CC, and annually for Tunbridge Wells Cricket Week ..."? "Tunbridge Wells CC": does "CC" stand for "Cricket Club"? It's hard to tell, since it's spelt out with "Kent County Cricket Club" later in the same sentence—ususally you would spell it out first, and then shorten it (although I wouldn't shorten it without making it clear that's what you're doing first). Would Tunbridge Wells CC be worth a redlink? "It was opened in 1898 and was first used by Kent in 1901 and has been used by them annually since then": "and ... and ..." is not that elegant. I'd split this sentence in two after "1901". "It played host to one One Day International": I wouldn't start a paragraph with "it". Also, what's a "One Day International"? Is it a tournament? Can it be summed up with a word or two so I don't have to click through? "the group stage match between": which is the "group stage match", the One Day International or the 1983 Cricket World Cup? "The Nevill Ground is known for having rhododendron bushes around the perimeter": this doesn't need an inline citation if it's already cited in the body (which it should be if it's in the lead—the lead should be a summary of the body). Also, I'd move this to the first paragraph, if it's a defining feature. It seems random to tack it onto the end of this paragraph. Actually, I'd move the historical stuff (suffragette arson) to the second paragraph as well—good to keep the paragraphs thematic. I might expand the historical stuff as well—it's usage in the two world wars, the 1993 Women's World Cup. "Tunbridge Wells Cricket, Football and Athletic Club": worth a redlink? "started in 1896 with it being officially opened": did it "start with being opened"? I'd reword to something like "started in 1896, and it was officially opened" "were also planted": why "also"? In addtion to what? I'd reorder some of the info in the first paragraph of "History", which doesn't seem to me to follow any logical order—we're told about the border running through it, the the rhododendrons, then the Railway End. Maybe order the border & railway stuff together? "C. H. Strange": worth a redlink? "It was built in 1903 at a cost of £1,200 and was destroyed in a suffragette arson attack in April 1913.": are these events so strongly linked they should be one sentence like this? "a temporary grandstand at the Nevill Ground": can this be expanded on? "1913 Arson": I don't like this being pulled oout of the chronology of the "History" section. Could it not be placed within the flow of "History", and break "History" into further subsections? "World Wars", "Post-War", etc, or whatever you think is appropriate File:Bluemantle stand Nevill Ground - geograph.org.uk - 1174829.jpg: per WP:IMAGELOCATION, should be placed within the section that refers to it, not before the header. "by militant suffragettes": is there something good to link here? Very tantalizing ... "The fire was started in the dressing rooms with the perpetrator setting fire to cricket nets that were being stored in there." I'd shorten this to something like: "The perpetrator set fire to cricket nets stored in the dressing rooms."—killing the passive and quickly getting to the point. "the fire in an hour": did it take them an hour before they managed to tame it? did it take them an hour to get it? Did it burn for an hour before it was noticed? "Emily Pankhurst": who? Can she be briefly summed up so I don't have to click through? "to have said "It is": I'd put a comma before the quote, although apparently it's acceptable without one (I don't understand why). "fund raising concerts": isn't "fundraising" one word? "It was formerly used to host association football however the Nevill Ground stopped hosting football in 1903.": I might shorten this to "It hosted association football until 1903." "one of its outgrounds": what's an outground? Is there something to link to, or a less jargony way to put it? "County Matches": Since It's Capitalized, I assume a County Match is something important. Worth a redlink, r a short explanation? "the demise of Mote Park": when did this happen? "In 2012, Kent's Friends Life Twenty20 match against Sussex was moved to the St. Lawrence Ground after the Nevill Ground was flooded after heavy rainfall leading to the 100th Tunbridge Wells Cricket Week being cut short.": how significant was this? Is it included only because it's recent? Is it rare for something like this to happen? "1983 World Cup", "1993 Women's World Cup": I'd make these a subsection of the "History" section" "one of the host grounds": along with ...? "the Nevill Ground being ruled as too small with India and Zimbabwe being deemed": "being ... being ..." reads awkwardly to me. "Despite this there ... no proof of this occurring": this is pretty wordy—it could easily be condensed into a single sentence. "one of the venues used in the 1993 Women's Cricket World Cup": alng with ...? "Kapil Dev scored 175": He's linked in the lead, but should also be linked at first mention in the body. I might also throw in an image: File:Kapil Dev at Equation sports auction.jpg is free, though it's from 2013. Maybe an image of Lord Harris as well? File:Ranji 1897 page 231 Lord Harris.jpg (1897) is free, and has him posing with a cricket bat. "This record was later beaten by Viv Richards.": When? How about a "Description" section? You could put the rhododendron, pavilion, etc stuff in there, as well as seating capacity, and remove that ugly citation out of the infobox. ———Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Friday 8 November 2013, 16:05 UTC) Lists List of UK Caving fatalities I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to present it as a candidate for a featured list in the future. Thanks, Langcliffe (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Note: You need to move the title to "List of US caving facilities" Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC) If you are referring to the capitalisation of "Caving" rather than to the words "UK" and "fatalities", thank you. You're absolutely right, and I'll set up a REDIRECT. Langcliffe (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I've now moved the page to one with appropriate capitalisation as suggested - I hope that the Peer Review process can cope! Langcliffe (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Friday 31 January 2014, 13:06 UTC) Kumi Koda discography I've listed this article for peer review so I can see what needs to be improved for it to become a featured list, and hopefully develop a template for other Japanese discographies to become featured lists. Thanks for any comments! --Prosperosity (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I'd be glad to help. To get right to the point, I think the lead paragraph is too heavy. Comparing notes with Nirvana discography (a featured article), the lead paragraph should try to succinctly summarize her successes and release history (e.g. instead of saying what charted how high on which charts, you could say, "Such-and-such album spawned singles which became successful"). Granted, between a pop singer with a long and fruitful career and a grunge band that lasted only a few albums, there's almost no comparison, but I think there's a way to trim the fat here. The lead paragraph has lots and lots about chart positions and certifications - all of which should be summarized and all of which is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. From what I gather over at Nirvana discography, the lead paragraph of an article such as this should have a basic release & label signing history with general descriptions of success, without going into the technical details. Hope this helps! Good luck! LazyBastardGuy 16:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC) How is that? I kept the Two Million certifications bit in there since they're very rare, but got rid of the rest. Everything that's left is mostly explaining things peculiar to her discography. --Prosperosity (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Almost there! Again, though, bits like these: "Take Back" peaked at number 18 on the Hot Dance Music/Maxi-Singles Sales chart,[1] and "Trust Your Love" in 2001 reached the top spot on the same chart.[2] should be paraphrased. The data you're presenting in the prose is already there in the rest of the article so it's not needed here. As for the two-millions bit, I would at least move that, say, to the end of the second paragraph since chronologically-speaking it seems to work best there. LazyBastardGuy 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Sunday 26 January 2014, 07:27 UTC) List of Millennium characters I've listed this article for peer review because it's the first list of its type I've worked on to this level; it's a list composed of prose entries rather than tables or the like. My main concerns are the prose (which I may seek to address down the line with a GOCE copy-edit) and the lead, which I do feel is lacking but can't quite figure out just what should go in there. The list itself is as comprehensive as it's likely to ever be, as the series itself hasn't seen much depth of coverage, and the one-man focus has meant that most characters were left out where the buses don't run as regards third-party coverage. Any suggestions at all that can be offered would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! GRAPPLE X 00:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Monday 20 January 2014, 00:49 UTC) List of notable people under FVEY surveillance I've listed this article for peer review and I hope that it will meet the featured list criteria, so that we can include it for an upcoming project (Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day) Any feedback is greatly appreciated! Thanks. -A1candidate (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Interesting. But seems likely incomplete w/ regards to the Snowden era revelation. For starters, Snowden himself is not on the list... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) That's a very important point indeed, thank you for your comments. I've originally included Angela Merkel and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Indonesia's President) in the list, both of whom Snowden revealed were targeted by surveillance, but I later removed them since there was not much to illustrate their notability (other than merely being national leaders). I've put them back now since I agree that the list should include some of the more notable targets revealed by Snowden. I've also included Osama bin Laden, but I'm not sure if he meets the criteria (Person must be public figure/celebrity), as defined in the lead section. What do you think? Should he be included? As for Snowden himself, there is no doubt he is considered by the government to be a fugitive, but unfortunately, I can't find any reliable source to demonstrate that he is being actively tracked down by surveillance. I'm absolutely sure they're doing everything to get him, I just can't find any documented evidence of this. -A1candidate (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC) A related barrier to FA status is the serious imbalance in citizenship - I'm guessing around 90% are US citizens. Jojalozzo 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I've restructured it and I think I've struck a good balance between the inclusion of U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, but the list has become too short, so I'm currently working to expand it. -A1candidate (talk) From the description of the FVEY program as a way to get around domestic surveillance restrictions, I think that the inclusion criteria should require that surveillance be conducted by a foreign agency and shared with the targets' home country. I don't see how surveillance of notables by their own government agencies (e.g. Einstein, Keller, Roosevelt, Hemingway, Lindberg, who I think are all US citizens and for whom only FBI surveillance is mentioned) would qualify for this list. This over-broad criteria gives the appearance of pumping up the list and suggests an anti-surveillance POV. Even the invitation to this peer review suggests a bias against surveillance since the purpose is to get featured article status in time to participate in an anti-surveillance event. Perhaps a column listing citizenship and a column listing surveillance agency would help sort this out. Jojalozzo 19:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I've decided to restructure the list by strictly limiting the surveillance targets to those of FVEY only, so this has resulted in the removal of many domestic FBI targets. The list now appears to be quite short, so I'm currently working to expand it. What do you think of it so far? -A1candidate (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC) This is making sense but the the topic is less notable since, as you say, the list is so short. This puts FA rather far off I think, but you have paradoxically brought it closer at the same time. Good work. I think it might be useful to add a comment at the start of the table to discourage editors from making the mistake of adding entries of citizens surveilled solely by their own agencies. I'd still like to see a column listing citizenship and a column listing surveillance agency. Jojalozzo 05:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Agree with Jojalozzo...the list is over-broad, is of questionable historicity...the broad criteria for inclusion makes the list feel rather artificial like those conspiracy theorists who think Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Claude Debussy ran the Priory of Sion. It seems to perpetuate a post hoc ergo propter hoc lie...claiming anyone who was under surveillance was automatically under FVEY surveillance. Einstein was watched because he was German and knew too much about physics. That was an Army intelligence decision to keep him watched and keep him away from the Manhattan project. It was not because of some global Anglophone conspiracy, and definitely not in the surveillance environment complained about recently. Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer. Hemingway was a communist. Both were watched only because J. Edgar Hoover thought them dangerous. Hoover's surveillance was not FVEY surveillance. MLK was surveilled by COINTELPRO...which was looking for potential red links to 60s radicals and civil rights leaders...largely again because of J. Edgar Hoover's personal interest, not an international conspiracy. While he was tangentially connected to mobsters and his name popped up now and then in investigations, Sinatra only really came under surveillance by Hoover because Hoover hated Kennedy and Sinatra was close to Kennedy. A lot of these are entirely questionable and random. Surprisingly, I only see two terrorists on the list (Mandela and Bin Laden....so KSM doesn't qualify for inclusion? al-Awlaki? the radical imam in London?).--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. After evaluating all the points brought up in the above discussions, I've decided to restructure the list by strictly limiting the surveillance targets to those of FVEY only, so this has resulted in the removal of many domestic FBI targets. The list now appears to be quite short, so I'm currently working to expand it. What do you think of it so far? -A1candidate (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC) SchroCat comments I'm concerned about the inclusion criteria here and this would probably fail as being too incomplete for any real purpose. We're supposed to think that millions of dollars and pounds are spent on surveillance, using the most high- (and low-) tech equipment possible, and we've got a list of six people? I'd question using "celebrity" as a criteria: this is an encyclopaedia, not Hello magazine. Go with notable in the wiki definition of the term and there will be less resistance - and the content will match the title too. This is an article about the five eyes, yet there are only agencies from three countries listed, and nothing from the other two. We do allow some incomplete lists to go through (when it's clear what the issues are), but I think we're too incomplete to get past criteria 3(a) of the FL criteria. As to the most nuts and bolts, easily fixable stuff, the following is a top-ten rough list for you: Refs 1, 2 and 3 are probably best at the end of the sentence. No bold text needed in the opening lines Flags are not needed in the first table Images are not needed in the section table. If you're going to have them, have them as the last column - or second last if you use the idea below Think about a final column to hold the references (see List of works by E.W. Hornung for an example) Why is Chaplin English, but Lennon British? FN7: retrieved date should include a day, not just month and year FN16 has inconsistent date formatting FNs 11, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26 & 27 need dates for the reports FN23 needs sorting - spaces before commas. - SchroCat (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC) @SchroCat - I've removed "celebrity" from the criteria, so for now, as long as someone is notable enough to be a public figure, he or she could be included. The list of agencies involved has been expanded, since more notable people have now been added. Still, one should take into account the fact that much of the information contained in this list is supposed to be highly top secret stuff that are not meant for public eyes (The UKUSA Agreement itself, which the Five Eyes alliance is based upon, was not even publicly disclosed until 2010). Unless government secrecy is totally eradicated and we have more people like Edward Snowden, whose unauthorized disclosures have contributed to 50% of the names on this list, there is no way we can have a fully complete list. If there is a list that may meet the FL criteria despite being incomplete, I think this one may qualify. Other changes: Moved refs to the back Removed bold Removed flags I've kept the images because I think they add value to the article. I understand that they probably make the list a little bit too untidy, so these images may be still be removed after all, depending if I can find a better way to display them. Column added Changed to British nationality All references have now been fixed accordingly, as far as my untrained eye can tell, or did I miss something? @Jojalozzo - I agree that a column listing citizenship and a column listing surveillance agency would help to make things clearer, the list has now been changed accordingly. I do feel that the table may become a little bit cluttered as a result. Perhaps we could merge the "name" and "nationality" columns into a single one. Do you know of a better way to rearrange the data? -A1candidate (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Jojalozzo comments I do not think the table is cluttered, nor do I think name and nationality should be combined. One of the advantages of table columns is they can be sorted by each column. Combining columns eliminates some of this flexibility in information presentation. I do not think the photos are a problem either. Most of the screen real estate is consumed by the text in the notes column and the photos take up relatively little space while illustrating the article and adding human interest. It appears that the agencies in the agencies column are listed in alphabetical order. I think the foreign agency should be listed first to enable sorting on the foreign agency rather than whatever happens to be alphabetically first. To maintain this over time, a comment would be advisable to guide editors in adding new entries. Given this is a worldwide encyclopaedia, could you clarify what you mean by a "foreign" agency. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC) We mean "foreign" as in "not domestic". A foreign agency is any agency other than one from the surveilled person's own country. E.g. for a NZ citizen, all of the agencies of AU, CA, UK, and US would be considered foreign. Jojalozzo 02:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Since an unknown number of notable persons under five eyes surveillance may be missing from this list due to the secrecy of the information as of this writing, I suggest adding a comment at the end of the introduction explaining this. Jojalozzo 22:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC) (Peer review added on Saturday 18 January 2014, 22:45 UTC) WikiProject peer-reviews WikiProject Military history: Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer • House of Plantagenet References