Wikipedia:Peer review

Zobacz też:

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

Arts

Lions (album)

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's dang close to meeting the featured article criteria but want the opinion of someone not involved in writing it.

Thanks, Zeagler (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

indopug

• I'll look at the rest later but what makes crowesbase.com a reliable sources? Looks like a fansite to me.
  • It's semi-official. The people who run it work with TBC management to ensure everything is accurate, and The Black Crowes' official site links to it prominently.
    • Looks like it's official after all: BLACK CROWES: PT 2 - PROTOPLASMIC REVERIES —Zeagler (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Both those videos need to go per WP:NFCC #8. An image of them playing at Letterman is not a significant addition to prose in any way. The music video is more suited for the song's article (where you would discuss the music videos, not here)
  • I'd like others' opinions on this. For the second case, at least, there is precedent at featured articles Adore (album) and Pinkerton (album).
• Why are there two refs after Audly Freed's name in the Personnel section? The section is self referential to the CD itself so you don't need a reference normally. indopug (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There was speculation that his actual contribution to the album was nothing more than "watched from the sidelines", so I found references where his contributions are discussed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy

• In the pro reviews part of the infobox, if you don't have a URL, just put some publication details there instead (ie. no need for refs).
  • Can you point me towards some articles where this is done so I can see the formatting?
• The music sample needs a better description (one that actually says something about what it contains) and would look better on the right.
  • Done.
• An FAC could have concerns over the use of fair use imagery (like, do you need both of those images.... do they add anything?).
  • Will beef up the fair use rationales.
• And with having more than 1 audio sample, same again...
• The 1 star NME review isn't mentioned anywhere in the prose. Why not?
  • In general the reception could be longer.
    • The NME review isn't mentioned because I recently found a number of reviews (thanks in part to the Internet Archive) and added them to the infobox at the expense of reviews that only had references. I'll incorporate them into the critical reception section. —Zeagler (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy _(:O) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • As above, what makes http://www.crowesbase.com/ a reliable source? I know you said it's "semi-official" which means it's not truly official.
    • Again, the people who run it work with TBC management to ensure everything is accurate, and The Black Crowes' official site links to it prominently.
      • Looks like it's official after all: BLACK CROWES: PT 2 - PROTOPLASMIC REVERIES —Zeagler (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes http://qfg.info/misc/bcet0901.txt a reliable source? Also lacking a publisher
    • It's somebody's transcript of an article that originally appeared in a print magazine. I don't doubt its accuracy, but that probably doesn't fly...so it's gone.
  • What makes http://www.nudeasthenews.com/ a reliable source?
    • It's an interview conducted by Jonathan Cohen, who co-created the site and was also a Billboard editor.
  • Current ref 15 is lacking a publisher
    • Fixed.
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20010604015958/http://www.sonicnet.com/reviews/rev.jhtml?genreNameForDisplay=Rock&genreDirectoryName=rock&cid=1443456&configPathName=Rock deadlinks
    • Aargh, it worked last week when I added it! Gone.
      • Link works again, so it's back in the article. —Zeagler (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • what makes http://web.archive.org/web/20020127044636/http://cool.syntrillium.com/closeups/freed/ a reliable source?
    • It's an interview, and while Syntrillium had a product to push, the part of the interview I reference has nothing to do with Cool Edit Pro.
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
    • Ah, missed that rule. Fixed. —Zeagler (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 10 June 2008, 18:38 UTC)

Last of the Summer Wine

Previous peer review

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because… I've improved it as much as I know how and want opinions on how to improve the article to get it up to FA status.

Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Driveby note: Just in case you get no major replies here, I'll read over the article again when AnnaFrance has finished her copyedit pass. Making FA-quality prose suggestions is kind of hard to do in a peer review, and it's often easier to just do the copyedits yourself (myself) for the late finetunings. It will just take longer as I am not always in the mood to copyedit or may be busy otherwise. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is an excellent encyclopedia article – very informative and comprehensive, sufficiently detached from its subject to feel authoritative. There are some prose weaknesses which I will point up, although it seems that a copyedit is taking place concurrent with this review, so some of these problems might be resolved in that process.

• In the lead, for consistency "twenty-five" should be numeric
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also in lead, there is an awkward repetition of "numerous" in the third paragraph
  • Done by AnnaFrance. Redfarmer (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the History and development section, the BBC's hatred of the title, and the cast's worries about it, do not seem to be directly cited
  • Made clearer. Redfarmer (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the Filming section the statement "The amount of location work increased as the cast began to age…" seems a non sequitur. In fact, the entire sentence is a bit puzzling.
  • Done by AnnaFrance. Redfarmer (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Michael Bates described as the "veteran" comedy actor? He was about 50 at the time, same as Sallis and years younger than Owen.
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The sub-heading "Plot" isn’t really appropriate to describe a multi-series comedy show. It’s the general setting of the series that is being described here. I can't off-hand come up with a word or phrase that could replace "Plot", but I’m sure one exists.
  • Changed to "Scenario" based on wording from FA article Only Fools and Horses. Redfarmer (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the short preamble to the "Episodes" section there is a sentence: "Each series of episodes has between six and twelve episodes", which is clumsy. In fact, the word "episod" occurs five times in this short preamble.
  • Done by AnnaFrance. Redfarmer (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Repetition is even more evident in the Specials section, where the word special or specials occurs eleven times. The section also contains the awkward sentence: "Specials may constitute the only new episodes in the years without an order for a new series, which often happened…" etc etc. This point could be stated more briefly and more clearly.
  • Done by AnnaFrance. Redfarmer (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the Documentaries section you use the term "special" again.
  • Done by AnnaFrance. Redfarmer (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• In the Reception section you need to say 18.6 per cent, not just 18.6.
  • Done. Redfarmer (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I’m confused by the conflicting messages in the second para of this section, which appears to say that on the one hand the Radio Times readers hate the show and the BBC want to cancel it, on the other hand it's wildly popular with the viewers. Perhaps these separate points need presenting in a different way.
  • I'm not sure what you find conflicting about this information. It goes to show that reception of the series is mixed. Redfarmer (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that, subject to copyediting and fine tuning, the article will be a worthy FA candidate, and I look forward to seeing it there. Brianboulton (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

AnnaFrance comments Thanks Brianboulton! Some great catches there. I believe I've taken care of the copyedit points you've mentioned, including the incredibly repetitive repetitions. --AnnaFrance (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 12 June 2008, 14:58 UTC)

Porcupine (album)

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've substantially re-written it over the last few weeks and I'm aiming to nominate it for GA status.

Thanks, JD554 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Giggy comments

• This isn't far off GA standards.
• The audio sample captions need more detail, to show how they're being used educationally (and it needs to relate to the text).
  • Fixed
• Some of the reviews in the reception section aren't in the infobox... be consistent.
  • Fixed
• First sentence of article should mention genre.
  • Fixed
• "it became the band's highest charting release when it reached number two on the UK Albums Chart despite initially receiving poor reviews." - probably put a comma before 'despite"
  • Fixed
• "Following a difficult period writing Porcupine, it was recorded at Trident Studios in London, Rockfield Studios in South Wales and Amazon Studios in Liverpool." - I think it'd read better if you removed a bit... "following a difficult writing period, Porcupine was recorded..."?
  • Fixed
• I hope these comments help. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Cheers, giggy _(:O) 03:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Monday 16 June 2008, 13:12 UTC)

I Should Coco

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

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

It is my aim to get this article to Good Article standard, and I would like some constructive comments about the content of the page and the amount of referencing on it and how I could expand the Lead section would be much appreciated.

Thanks, TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to tell you that the sound samples should be reduced in length. The consensus from WP:Music Samples states that the samples should be a maximum of 30 seconds and no more than 10% of the length of the original recording. Regarding the lead, try to summarise or state the most important fact from each of the sections (but this is only a suggestion). The lead should form a short summary of the article. I would suggest the lead should perhaps be two paragraphs, doubling its current size. Maybe this second section could give a short comment on musical style/major influences for the album, reference to critics' response and mention of the Mercury Prize Award. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of Sillyfolkboy's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:

• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, agree it should be at least two paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
• A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are many FAs on albums at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music that may be useful as models
• Refer to the members of the band by their last names, not their first (encyclopedic tone) Gaz, Danny, and Mick had been playing gigs around Oxford when they were spotted by producer Sam Williams, who said he wanted to work with them.
• Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. The whole genre was seen as the voice of youth, but Supergrass dealt with the subject most elaborately, being still in their teens themselves when the album was made. The most well-known song from the album, "Alright", is still played regularly in Britain and Ireland, and held up as an example of teenage rebellion in music. Though it is one of their most popular songs Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
• Some places need refs - one example All of these elements were then put together by Nick Bax of The Designers Republic to create the finished sleeve. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Make sure all of the sources used meet WP:RS - what makes http://www.beale.plus.com/Ishudko/ a RS?
• Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs as they break up the flow of the article. Expand or combine them.
• Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 16 June 2008, 18:22 UTC)

Disturbed

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve this article to the featured article level. I would be very glad to become feedback

Thanks, Vb (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have reviewed with FAC in mind as your future objective.

• The lead does not conform with WP:LEAD in that it is a short introduction, rather than a "concise overview" of the whole article.

• Structure. The overall structure is too loose. The idea of structuring the article around the four main albums doesn’t really work. Within these album subsections, general information about the band is also given, seemingly at random. Sometimes the information is at an unnecessary level of detail, for example the paragraph dealing with Disturbed pack 01 – all that stuff about prices and points and free downloads etc. That is ephemeral information, for a weekly magazine; the encyclopedia article has to be written to last. A similar criticism relates to: "It has been recently announced…" This won't make much sense in the future, nor will writing about events of July and August 2008 in the future tense.

• Non-encyclopedic language: Although, overall, the prose is clear enough, there are many instances of informal or non-encyclopedic language. A certain degree of formality in expression is required, as against what might be acceptable in a magazine article. Some examples (not an exhaustive list):-
  • "demos" for demonstration discs (or tapes)
  • "Not long after", without a time reference
  • "still is used a great deal to this day" – imprecise, what is “this day?”
  • referring to a band member in the text as "Fuzz", his nickname
  • "skip the tour"
  • "wasn't" - OK within quote, but not in body of text – should be "was not" (first line of Indestructible section)

• Images – only one used.

• Referencing: see Ealdgyth comments above.

There is no reason why this article should not, in time, join the dozens of other band articles on the FA list, but my feeling is that it is still at a relatively early stage of development. I think that the present Start rating is about right. I suggest study of recent band FAs, to get an idea of what a featured article entails, then much work before a return to the review process.

I hope that this is of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 17 June 2008, 20:12 UTC)

The Museum of Curiosity

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try and promote this article to FA status. I believe it to be high quality and the article is already of GA status. One problem I have is that I have extra information that could be used in the article, but the only sources come from those considered unreliable such as web forums (despite the fact the people on it are those working on the show) and an article I created for another website, which would probably not be counted as reliable. However, I have put this article in the external links section.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a show I have never heard. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for ideas - I note there is one FA on a radio series: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) which may be useful.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - for example the Episodes are not mentioned in the lead at all. Please see WP:LEAD
• Article needs more references, for example the last two sentences of each paragraph of Format are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The lead makes it sound as if the critical reception was mostly negative, but the examples cited are mostly positive.
• Are there any plans for a second series / more episodes?
• How can a TV show be a "researcher" in The show[']s researchers are James Harkin, Xander Cansell and QI.[3]??
• Are ratings available - how popular was it with audiences?
• Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 June 2008, 10:37 UTC)

Curtis (50 Cent album)

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it will show what needs to be done for the article to be a featured article.

Thanks, Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I removed the semi-automated peer review as it: 1) does not follow directions above; 2) takes too much space for PR; 3) breaks semi transclusion, so no one else can see the review request. Feel free to strike the review in WP:PRA/JN08. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article, while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

• A model article is useful for ideas to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music, a lot of which are on albums.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - Kingdom Come is only in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Lyrics are not in the lead as one example. Please see WP:LEAD
• There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined or perhaps expanded.
• Article needs a copyedit, one example - these sentences could be combined to something like 50 Cent stated that the album was inspired by his life before his commercial debut, Get Rich or Die Tryin'. He also stated[, and] that he chose the album's title because he was known as "Curtis" before he became famous.[8]
• Article needs more references, for example all of the lyrics quoted seem to be uncited. The first lyrics quote also seems very long for fair use. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The images were copyvio and so could not be on Commons (I noted them as copyvio there). I do think that the Rolling Stone cover could be used here under Fair Use (on Wikipedia). Not sure if the others could be used here or not.
• Many albums have a brief sound clip or two to illustrate the music styles etc. See some of the model FA articles.
• Quoting the entire Track listing seems too detailed
• Refs look OK, please make sure all sources meet WP:RS
• Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 20 June 2008, 15:14 UTC)

Meshuggah

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to pass the featured article criteria even before I add it to featured article nominations. So I thank everybody who gives me some suggestions. I just want to know what needs to be improved so that the article passes the FA criteria. Thanks a lot, Cheers :)  LYKANTROP  09:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've red User:AndyZ/Suggestions and corrected some things. But I still need opinions of other experienced users...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am still in the middle of copy-editing the article, but one thing I noticed is your heavy reliance on the band's official bio. That will cause you a lot of problems at FAC should you decide to list it. You will need to find more reliable, secondary sources to back up many statements. --Laser brain (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I know. WP:SELFPUB. But do you think that those facts are controversial or contentious? Where else can I find such details about the biography?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, probably not. But rest assured, they may be challenged. If they are, I'd be glad to help you find other sources. A good place to look is a database named General OneFile. Most libraries have access to it. You can type in "Meshuggah" and it will search tons of magazines for articles about the band. I found a 27-page article named "Re-casting Metal: Rhythm and Meter in the Music of Meshuggah" that would probably have tons of great info. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I would be really glad If you help me with that. The General OneFile sounds very interesting. I will search in some libraries, but I am not sure if it is so spread also in Europe. In which form does the General OneFile give you the article(s)? Thanks for the help..--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I've added some sources to the text more appropriately. Less text is based only on the official bio now.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Saturday 21 June 2008, 09:44 UTC)

June Anderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tohru Honda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strawberry Fields Forever

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superman Returns

Previous peer review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shojo Beat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batman Begins