From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The peer review list on this page is automatically generated. Please do not edit this page to add or remove peer reviews. Individual peer reviews can be edited by following the edit section links next to the article titles, which are now stored on /archiveN pages from the very start (the term "archive" for these pages is purely historical). Please see the instructions below and report any problems on the talk page. |
|
|
Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Nominators are strongly encouraged to make use of the Peer review volunteers page, which lists users who are willing to be contacted on their user talk pages for review participation. Active Wiki projects or the revision history of related articles may also be consulted to find editors to help with review.
For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.
For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.
|
The path to a featured article
- Start a new article
- Develop the article
- Check against the featured article criteria
- Get creative feedback ←
- Apply for featured article status
- Featured articles
|
|
Nomination procedure
Anyone can request peer review. Users submitting new requests are encouraged to review an article from those already listed, and encourage reviewers by replying promptly and appreciatively to comments. Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC. For more information on these limits see here.
To add a nomination:
- Add
{{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
- Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
- Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
- Save the page with the four tildes (
~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.
- Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.
Your review may be more successful if you politely request feedback on the discussion pages of related articles; send messages to Wikipedians who have contributed to the same or a related field; and also request peer review at appropriate Wikiprojects. Please do not spam many users or projects with identical requests.
Note. You may change a topic parameter in the {{Peer review page|topic= X}} template. The possible topic parameters (X in the template) are:
- X = arts · langlit (language & literature) · philrelig (philosophy & religion) · everydaylife · socsci (social sciences & society) · geography · history · engtech (engineering & technology) · natsci (natural sciences & mathematics). If no topic is chosen, the article is listed with "General" topics.
|
|
How to remove a request
In accordance with the Peer review request removal policy, you may close any
- listings older than one month with no activity in the last two days,
- listings inactive for two weeks (semi-automated peer reviews do not count as activity),
- inappropriate listings,
- articles that have become featured article or featured list candidates, and
- nominators of peer reviews can close discussions which they initiated if they feel their concerns have been addressed,
as follows:
- Edit the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/ARTICLE NAME/archiveN]] page where the peer review discussion is taking place, and replace {{Peer review page|topic=topic name}} by {{subst:PR/archive}}.
- Replace the {{peerreview}} tag on the article's talk page with {{oldpeerreview|archive=N}}, where N is the number of the peer review discussion page above (e.g. 1 for /archive1).
The listing will automatically be removed from this page and added to the current monthly archive within an hour. Nominators can also close/withdraw their own requests, but this is discouraged for active discussions.
|
|
How to respond to a request
- Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong, or could be improved, post a comment in the article's section on this page.
- If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not use level 1–3 section headings, and do not link your username, unless you preceed it with "Comments by" or a similar expression. Also please do not add horizontal rules to peer reviews.
- The size of this page is limited. Please do not add images to peer reviews, such as the tick/cross images in {{done}}/{{notdone}} templates. Use the non-image templates, {{done-t}}/{{not done-t}}, instead.
- Please list automated peer reviews at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/November 2008 and link them from the peer review page of the article: do not include them on the peer review page.
- Feel free to improve the article yourself.
For easier navigation, a list of peer reviews, without the reviews themselves included, can be found here. A chronological peer reviews list (not sorted by topic) can be found here.
|
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have done an extensive amount of editing and adding of information to this page and would like a serious critique of how I've done overall. Thanks, Now2blue (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Thursday 13 November 2008, 17:15 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been rewritten from scratch to remove COI issues.
Thanks, McWomble (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 9 November 2008, 05:18 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it can get to GA class with a bit of work. I started this article a long time ago and have been constantly adding to it. There isn't much to say about their musical stylings that I can find, and I've had a very hard time finding critical reviews outside Allmusic and Entertainment Weekly.
Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- The infobox lists a lot more members than the lead... odd discrepancy (says when he's only read one paragraph of lead)
- After reading some more... maybe say it initially consisted of those guys in the first paragraph?
- "These albums also produced" - why the also?
- "Brown
then introduced"
- "failed to chart
entirely"
- "produced their first music video" - the song was the producer of the video? :) reword
- The article basically reads as a discography; album X was released on date, singles X Y and Z were released and charted as follows. Is there nothing more to be said about the band's career? (biography not discography)
- Overuse of also in the third music career paragraph
- "In September 2000, Herndon decided to re-unite with McBride and Thomas after meeting them" - after meeting them when/where/why? Sentence ends very awkwardly
- "Since then, McBride became the bass guitarist in Brooks & Dunn's road band." - don't mix past and present tense in the one sentence
- In general it feels like there's more content available to be used. Just a gut feeling. Hope this helps... Giggy (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- Meh, I'm trying. Most of their career was before the Internet as we know it existed, so there aren't a ton of web sources available. All of the members in the infobox are indeed listed in the lead, check the paragraph where it mentions the added members. I haven't found out when or why they reunited, even tho that was much more recently. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2008, 22:17 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently developed this article considerably, and would like positive and creative feedback in how I can improve it as much as possible, and be able to nominate it for GA review.
Thanks, Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi Michael. First of all, let me say how I appreciate your work on this article, since I'm Portuguese and was really touched by our entry this year and all the reactions to it. Now, about the article, one thing that came out to my eyes immediately was the excessive and thoroughly detailed content concerning the national final. In my opinion, it would be great for an article Festival da Canção 2008, where such level of specificity is justified, but not for this one, where mainly the results are compulsory and a link to the national final article would be enough. I mostly like to do proofreading to find a fix grammar and syntax bugs, so I hope you don't mind if I take a deeper, more careful look into it.
-
- This article was expanded as part of the Eurovision WikiProject's unofficial drive to expand and nominate the 2008 pages for Good Article Status. Most articles contain the national selection in the main article as a way to keep everything together (most aren't this detailed though). To make a separate page would complicate things such as navigational templates and the way we assess articles. The national selection as a whole usually has a page if it has an official name or way that it works year after year, but we generally discourage individual selection pages. All together it just seems more complete. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- A bit off-topic, but... what if someone created per-year articles of a specific national final? Would the Eurovision Project be against it and battle for its closure? If not, would you still keep that level of detailness in the "Country at Eurovision Song Contest Year" pages?
- I understand that this type of articles must begin with the national final - where the song was selected - and then proceed to the participation in the international contest, the main topic. But what I find extraneous is the amount of detail concerning the national final in this article (for instance, the contestants' clothing...), while the ESC content itself is not that broad. On a side note, for example, I see that Sweden in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 is more of a Melodifestivalen 2008 (which is actually a redirect). Parutakupiu (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's easier to maintain one page as opposed to two with near identical content. It also doesn't help that some countries' finals have no name so we're trying to be consistent here in the layout of all of them. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2008, 18:29 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
Before I nominate this as an FAC, there are some places where I think that the prose could be improved—mostly in the lead. Perhaps the reception section should be cut down as well. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from 97198
- the return of several dead or departed characters and revelations about them; specifically, that Tom (M.C. Gainey) is gay - "several" characters and revelations about them are mentioned, but it's not really going into specifics when only one instance is given. Either the clause before or after the semicolon needs to be changed to reflect what the other implies.
- After escaping from the island, Michael has returned to Manhattan, has become estranged from his son Walt Lloyd (Malcolm David Kelley) after confessing that he murdered Ana Lucia Cortez (Michelle Rodriguez) and Libby (Cynthia Watros) as part of his effort to rescue Walt from the Others' captivity and is seeing apparations of the late Libby - a pretty big mouthful for one sentence. If you don't break it up, a serial comma after "captivity" would make it somewhat easier for reading.
- Libby's mysterious backstory will be revealed through multiple flashbacks of a new character not aboard Oceanic 815 introduced in the fourth or fifth season - doesn't entirely make sense to use future tense with season 4, though it does make it hard to discuss 4 and 5 in the same tense...
- Cynthia Watros became the first former cast member not receive a "Special Guest Star" credit upon her return - could possibly do with a citation, as the episode itself can't be used to show that this was the fourth. Could be hard to source, though.
- revealed to be the homosexual—Lost's only gay characters - "the homosexual"?
- executive producers co-creator/head writer Damon Lindelof and staff writer Carlton Cuse - we've got a kind of double-epithet going on for each of them... not sure if this could be easily trimmed?
- Dubbed "the most anticipated Lost of the season" by Verne Gay of Newsday - would placing an "[episode]" after "Lost" make some more sense?
- I don't think Lindelof's 24 analogy really adds much. It's already pointed out that he was less than impressed by the fan forums and the nitpicking, so his little rant about 24 isn't especially relevant, IMO. (And you mentioned the Reception section is a little lengthy.)
- "this episode fell a little short … I feel like we were kind of robbed of half of the 'What Happened to Michael?' story. It was interesting to see how far into depression he sunk … And they did give him a pretty good reason for working for Ben … But I can't shake the feeling that we missed a good opportunity. He further commented that "Tom would make a great football coach—his motivational speeches are awesome." - I think a quote needs to be closed around about "opportunity"...?
- Just my pedantic nitpicking - do we really need all the ampersands in ref 39? Looks kinda neater and a little less "whoa" with semicolons. Maybe likewise for ref 4. Maybe ref 14 too, or perhaps keep the ampersand between the Darltons because they're a "writing team"? Or you could just use commas as done in ref 7 ... oh, the possibilies are endless. Do as you please. It's definitely not life or death, as much as it sounds like it!
Lovely as usual. Image FU rationale will probably need some strengthening for taking to FAC, though I don't doubt you already expect that. :) —97198 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2008, 01:50 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I want a second opinion about its contents. Also, I want this article to be as acurate as posible.
Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Ink Runner (talk · contribs) As I don't read Spanish, I am not able to check the reliability of the Spanish references, so I'll just work on streamlining the prose. (Tight prose is a must for FAs.)
- "Para Siempre (Eng.: Forever) is the title of the 79th studio album released by Mexican performer Vicente Fernández. It was written and produced by Joan Sebastian. And it is considered one of the most succesful mariachi recordings in recent times with worldwide sales over a million copies." -> "Para Siempre ("Forever") is the 79th studio album by Mexican singer Vicente Fernández. Written and produced by Joab Sebastian, the album is one of the most successful mariachi records in recent times; it has sold over a million copies worldwide."
Y Done
- "Three singles from this album reached Top Ten status on the Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart: "Estos Celos", "La Derrota" and the title track, which also is used as the main theme of the Mexican telenovela "Fuego En La Sangre". For this album, Vicente Fernández received several nominations for the most prestigious awards, including the Grammy Awards, Latin Grammy Awards and Premios Oye!." -> "Three of the albums singles reached the Top Ten on the Billboard Hot Latin Tracks chart: "Estos Celos", "La Derrota", and the title track, which was used as the main theme of the Mexican telenovela Fuego En La Sangre. The album earned Fernández nominations for a Grammy, a Latin Grammy, and a Premios Oye!." Y Done
- "Jason Birchmeier from Allmusic gave the album a 4 star review, calling the set "a near-perfect album" praising the singing, the songwriting and the instrumentation, naming it "stellar."" -> "Jason Birchmeier of Allmusic gave the album four stars; he called it a "near-perfect album" and "stellar" and praised the singing, the songwriting, and the instrumentation." Y Done
- "Para Siempre is the 79th album recorded by Vicente Fernández and was released on late September, 2007 in several countries including United States, México and Colombia; with this album Fernández is celebrating the 40th anniversary of his singing career, and according to his record label it is on of the most important projects on mexican music, despite a statement from Joan Sebastian, the album producer and songwriter, who declared that the record label did not expect much of this album, which has became on the most important recordings on Fernández career." -> "Para Siempre is the 79th album by Vicente Fernandez, released in September 2007 in several countries. Recorded to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his singing career, the album is, according to Fernández's record label, one of his most important. Producer Joan Sebastian, however, claimed that the label did not have such high expectations of the album." Y Done
(Peer review added on Saturday 8 November 2008, 01:06 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
Hello there Peer Review type persons!
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm just trying some small articles as I am new to Wikipedia, and I'd like a heads up on how to improve this article. I hope to become a more large scale contributer but I know from little things, big things grow.
Is the tone appropriate?
Although I know the person's date of birth, I have decided to only list their year of birth, due to privacy concerns. Is this the right decision?
Also, my coding may be a tad iffy.
Advice for future efforts gratefully accepted. Thanks, E. Swann (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ink Runner (talk · contribs)
- I see superscripts, but the footnotes don't appear. Add {{reflist}} to the page wherever you want the footnotes show up.
- Maybe organize the discography with tables?
Reply from E. Swann (talk · contribs) Thanks Ink Runner! Have inserted Reflist and tables... yr help is most appreciated. E. Swann (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from DanaBoomer
- For the references, make sure you have the publisher and not the work. For example, the publisher for ref 1 would be MOG Inc, not Mog.com, and for ref 9 it would be Entertainment Depot, rather than Entertainmentdepot.com.au.
- Check the reliability of your references. Blogs are generally not considered reliable.
- The lead should be a summary of the entire article, with no original information. My suggestion would be to move most of the information currently in the lead to a section titled "Career" or something of the sort, and leaving the lead as a summary of the information in the entire article. Because it's a summary, it doesn't need to be referenced.
- Is there any information available to expand this article? It is still very short. I would especially suggest looking for anything of a personal nature on Monika. A short section on where she was born, who her parents were, and other early career and personal information would be great.
I've done some reformatting on the article, just to make everything be in the right place. I didn't change any of the content. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so if you have any questions about this review, please contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 7 November 2008, 10:50 UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've expanded it a great deal over the last few days and believe that it is close to if not at good article status. I would appreciate review comments with an eye to leading to a successful GA nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments Great work on this article! I have a few suggestions; some are pretty nitty-gritty but keep in mind I'm not a film person but a literary person.
- In lead, first mention of Universal - My assumption is that "Universal" is a shortened version of the full name; why not say "Universal Studios"?
- In plot summary, this may sound pedantic, but it does not say that Dracula's daughter was a vampire before she's trying to be cured of vampirism. For absolute clarity, and for boneheads like me, it might be worth being more explicit. Later in that paragraph, I'm not sure the word "mesmerizing" is accurate. See mesmerism. You may also want to break up the plot summary into two or three paragraph for easier readability. Towards the end, some of the sentences get a little long and hard to follow; you might want to break them up too.
- The Production section could also be carved into a couple paragraphs and reorganized. I suggest, for exapmle, a paragraph right before "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer", and reserve that first paragraph for info on the source story, then go into the Universal vs. MGM thing. In fact, this is probably the only significant reorganization/rewriting I'd recommend. I don't think it's major but it would substantially improve things. The section is also severely low on citations. Maybe add a few more footnotes? A couple long, hard-to-follow sentences in this section too, notably: The script included scenes that implied that Dracula's daughter enjoyed torturing her male victims and that while under her control the men liked it too, along with shots of the Countess's chambers being stocked with whips and straps, which she would never use on-screen but whose uses the audience could imagine.
- Director section starts with another overwhelmingly long sentence. This section is probably the best as far as citations so good work there.
- Universal script section could use another footnote here and there if you can cite further.
- The section on the lesbian overtones of the film was fascinating (I have yet to see another quote in a Wikipedia article along the lines of "impressive Euro-butch dyke bloodsucker")! It might be a bit weighty but it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure it's in the ideal order though; it's sort of sandwiched between Reception and Influence. On the Entertainment Weekly quote, it might be worth putting the date of that quote in the prose (I think we suddenly jumped a couple decades). Same thing with the Celluloid Closet film; it might need a date too. The other quotes seem okay ("reviewers of the day") but it's interesting to know the time differences. The second to last paragraph there is also only two sentences; typically, I recommend aiming for minimum of three per paragraph. Either split up a sentence (Maybe the last sentence could be "She is finally interrupted by the arrival of Dr. Garth" or something) or splice it back into the paragraph above.
- Influence section is a bit short. I might suggest moving this into the reception section, possibly under the heading "Reception and influence" - with one exception, the note that it inspired homoerotic vampire fiction should definitely stay with the lesbianism section. It might solve my little question about the order of the Lesbian implications section.
I hope my notes have helped. Feel free to ignore ones you deem irrelevant. I think it has a good chance of passing GA status, especially once the long sentences are addressed. Good luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Tuesday 4 November 2008, 21:27 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because it passed the GAR a couple of months ago and I've done more work on it since then. I'd just like to get another party's account on how it's doing and what needs improving. I'd also like to know what kind of improvements would be required to get the article up to featured standard.
Thanks, Fintan264 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 2 November 2008, 23:19 UTC)
- Previous peer review
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to have the page FAC ready soon. I'll probably submit a FAC by Friday, so this won't be open long.
Thanks, Scorpion0422 04:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There is some occasional overlinking, especially in the merchandising section. Also, I have troubles linking "do not age" to immortality. Also, my personal preference is to list 'references' that use the show's episodes, separate from the 'true' references. Consider using the <ref group=note> trick. Nergaal (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments With just a quick scan I can see a real lack of info. Just examples:
- Nothing about his character development
- No mention of him being a fan of Radioactive Man
- Don't quite understand the Role in The Simpsons section, it seems more to be about his age, why is so short? why is it the lead section?
- "Reception and cultural influence" section should be split. It's not clear what's Reception and what's cultural influence.
- "Bart is sometimes willing to go through a series of humiliations if it means pleasing his mom." example?
- "While Bart has often hurt Lisa" example?
- Has this article has a copy edit.If not get someone to do one before you even consider making it a FAC.
BUC (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 2 November 2008, 04:04 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a quality article, but I'd like to get feedback regarding how the page can be improved even more, if needed. As far as I know, this article contains all of Rufus Wainwright's releases, and I believe each work has been cited appropriately.
Thanks, Whataworld06 (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 2 November 2008, 00:55 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is a quality article, but I'd like to get feedback regarding how the page can be improved even more, if needed. As far as I know, these are all of the awards and nominations Rufus Wainwright has received, and I believe each one has been cited appropriately.
Thanks, Whataworld06 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- "nominations by the" – "nominations from the"
- The references all need publishers.
- Y Done Thank you SO MUCH! I appreciate the assistance. Please let me know of any other changes that need to be made, or what the next step is... Whataworld06 (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Sunday 2 November 2008, 00:53 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because although it's brand-new and on the short side, I believe it fulfills or comes close to meeting the good article criteria. Since I'm the only one who's worked on the article, I wanted to get some new eyes on it before nominating it. Comments in the context of the GA criteria would be most helpful. Otto4711 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, seems pretty good for what is there. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- I would label the lead image caption to make it clear why the image is so dark.
- I am not sure "dramedy" is a word most readers will know - you could link comedy-dramedy to comedy-drama perhaps.
- Looking at some model FA articles on tv episodes, I see they usually have a production section and a reception section - I think the current controvery section could be split and most of the controversy could be in a reception section.
- Is there more info on reception at the time - what did TV critics then write about the episode? Or what kind of social commentary was there (if any) about the article?
- Has the episode been released on DVD? IS there DVD commentary or special features available that would be pertinent?
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 ><>°° 02:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 1 November 2008, 22:42 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I would appreciate a review and suggestions on what others may feel this article needs to get it to WP:FA status. I am not asking anyone to do the work as I will do that myself, but simply to give some suggestions to get it there. Thanks, Canyouhearmenow 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Ink Runner (talk · contribs)
I don't know if you want specific suggestions or general, so I'll try to do both...
- MoS-related issues
- "Nee= Mercer" should be "née [not capitalized, and with the acute accent] Mercer" (no equals sign)Y Done
- "...for the song, 'Drop that Rock'" No comma, since "Drop That Rock" is an essential element.Y Done
- I don't know if the last sentence in the lead section belongs there. Perhaps move it to the "Biography" or "Early life" section?
- The quotes (like those in the "Early life" section) shouldn't be italicized.Y Done
- Sources and external links
- I don't think that Jump the Shark is a reliable source, since it appears to be a forum.
- Since IMDB also has user-generated content, I don't think it is considered a reliable source, either.
- Prose
- I haven't read through the whole thing, but I noticed a bit of wordiness. For example, "The creators of the television series Touched by an Angel filmed an episode entitled, 'Show Me the Way Home' based on Cook's life" could be streamlined as "The Touched by an Angel episode 'Show Me the Way Home' was based on Cook's life."
I don't know what kind of review you were exactly aiming for, but if you're fine with this, I'll add more comments later.
Prose review I'll just work on streamlining the prose for now; if another reviewer doesn't finish the job, I'll continue tomorrow (Saturday for me).
- "Cook was born in Pascagoula, Mississippi but after two years his family relocated to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida where he attended the prestigious Pine Crest School and later graduated from Boyd Anderson High School" -> "Cook was born in Pascagoula, Mississippi; after two years, his family moved to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, where he attended Pine Crest School and later graduated from Boyd Anderson High School." I'm pretty sure that "but" as a conjunction should be used with contrastive clauses/phrases (the two clauses in the first sentence aren't exactly contrasting.) Y Done
- "Cook began his musical career at the age of five with his family, The Cook Family Singers. His parents divorced in 1980, which brought an end to four generations of the musical group." -> "Cook began his musical career at age five, singing with his family's group, The Cook Family Singers. His parents divorced in 1980, after which the group disbanded."Y Done
- "In his early life while performing with his family, Cook suffered at the hands of a father with a severe drinking problem. His father would become very violent with David's mother and all of the children after becoming intoxicated. After many years of this abuse Cook developed many psychological problems that ended up following him through to his life as an adult." -> "Early in life, Cook was abused by his father, who had a severe drinking problem; when intoxicated, the father would become violent towards the family. After many years of abuse, Cook developed psychological problems that continued into his adulthood."Y Done
- "Cook developed a severe Dissociative disorder coupled with psychogenic amnesia. Cook recalls having periods of "missing time" but never really understood why it was happening. In 1990 the disorders finally came full front when Cook experienced what they thought was a full blown stroke while in Ft. Lauderdale and was rushed to Coral Springs Medical Hospital." -> "Cook developed a severe dissociative disorder and psychogenic amnesia. He recalled having periods of "missing time" but never really understood the cause. In 1990, doctors finally diagnosed the disorders after Cook experienced what they thought was a severe stroke and was rushed to the Coral Springs Medical Hospital in Ft. Lauderdale."Y Done
- "Cook's story has been told on many occasions and through various media and television shows. The creators of the television series Touched by an Angel filmed an episode entitled, 'Show Me the Way Home' based on Cook's life. The episode portrays a Christian recording star that leaves his career after many tragic events and finding trouble in his walk with God. In the end, he overcomes his trials and returns to the stage and ministry with the help of the angels. The 700 Club also did a full length documentary on Cook that was aired throughout the world. Cook is the author of the published religious self help book Inspirational Words, which outlines most of his ordeal and how he eventually overcame the disorder." -> "Cook's story has been told through different media. An episode of the television series Touched by an Angel, 'Show Me the Way Home', was based on Cook's life; the episode portrayed a Christian music star that leaves his career after experiencing tragedy but returns to recording and ministry with the help of the angels. The 700 Club did a full-length documentary on Cook that was aired worldwide. Cook himself wrote the religious self-help book Inspirational Words, which outlines his ordeal and how he overcame the disorder."Y Done
- "His first solo Christian album, Come Follow Me, was released in 1985. The album was written and produced for him by famed producer/singer, Frank X. Loconto, former member of the popular 50's group, the Lane Brothers. The following year, he signed with the American Musical Academy of Arts Association (AMAAA) and recorded a follow up album entitled Personal Feelings." -> "His first solo Christian album, Come Follow Me, was released in 1985. The album was written and produced by singer/producer Frank X. Loconto, a former member of the group Lane Brothers. In 1986, he signed with the American Musical Academy of Arts Association (AMAAA) and released another album, Personal Feelings."Y Done
- "he started his own record label called DLC Records." -> "he started his own record label, DLC Records."
- "It was during this transitional period that Cook created a comedy character, named Mortermer Crabbottom, in the tradition of comedic country alter egos like Jim Nabors' eccentric Gomer Pyle persona." -> "At this time, Cook created Mortermer Crabbottom, a comedy character designed after Jim Nabors' eccentric Gomer Pyle persona."
- "Cook even recorded an album in character, Split Personality, based on the life and times of Mortermer Crabbottom growing up in the fictitious town of Crabbottom USA." -> "Cook also recorded an album in character, Split Personality, based on Mortermer Crabbottom's life in the fictitious town Crabbottom USA."
- "To date, Cook is the youngest person to be inducted." -> "Cook is the youngest person to be inducted."
Ink Runner (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments My review was hampered by an edit conflict. Some of these points may be covered by the above.
My main concern in this article has to do with the referencing. On my read-through I noticed that the first half-dozen sentences in the "Early life" section contained a number of highly significant statements about abuse, drunkenness, psychological illness, etc., all apparently cited to [13]. This turns out to be the website of Broward Health. In what way does this site provide any verification of the statement made concerning Cook? Similarly, reference [14], given later in the section after further medical information on Cook, is evidently a link to a media player. I am concerned that other apparent citations may be equally off the mark. I strongly recommend that you review each citation in turn, to see that it is a genuine source for the information you have provided in the article.
There are also general prose issues, a sample of which is listed below:-
(Nee = Mercer) needs to be writtern as (née Mercer)Y Done- 2500 should be written as 2,500Y Done
- "Drop that Rock" should be italicized, and not in quotesY Done
- The lead is too short. It is not a full summary of the article, and the information in the last mini-paragraph is rather trivial.
- The "Biography" section only takes Cook up to age 12. What is the demarcation between this section and the next, titld "Early life"?
- Comma required after "Mississippi" and "Florida"Y Done
- Why "Ft. Lauderdale", not "Fort Lauderdale"Y Done
- In "Music" section, "follow-up" needs a hyphen
- "which went on to earn..." would be better as "which earned..."Y Done
- "It was during this (not "that") transition..."Y Done
- Ref [19] is another dubious reference - why is it reliable, and how does it support the information in the text?
- "That same year..." What year is this - it's a while since a year has been given?Y Done
- In TV section, "co-host of the evening's..." not eveningsY Done
- Comma required after "president of Firebirds"Y Done
- "for the television series entitled New South Crossing..." - "entitled" is redundantY Done
- "the song became entitled..." Try "The song was called..."Y Done
- You should not use the style "...you saw Cook..." In this instance the passive voice "Cook was seen" is necessary.Y Done
- "ins and outs" (plurals), not "in's and out's"Y Done
A thorough prose check may well reveal other points needing attention. I hope this review has helped. Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you both for your review. There is one of the references that leads to a video of Cook on the 700 Club which explains all of the citation points in that area. I went through that when we took the article to WP:GAstatus. I will fix these things things as soon as possible. Please feel free to monitor the article and let me know of anything you see that needs more attention. Canyouhearmenow 01:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Saturday 1 November 2008, 15:12 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
This is a new article, in the Mozart biography genre, which deals with a period in Mozart's early life which was of seminal importance to his development as a composer. Comments invited on all aspects.
Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mozart family Grand Tour/archive1.
(Peer review added on Saturday 1 November 2008, 12:20 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • Watch peer review
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Tezkag72 and I would like to make it a featured article. We've worked on it to get it to good article status. Basically, we'd like to know what stands between it and a featured article so we can make further improvements.
Thanks, Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically, Escape Artist Swyer and I are trying to get Tragic Kingdom to FA status, after which we will get Everything in Time and Boom Box to GA, so we can make everyone's work on the other No Doubt albums worthwhile by getting the whole topic "No Doubt albums" to featured topic. If there's anything standing in the way of Tragic Kingdom becoming an FA, please let us know here. Tezkag72 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Giants2008 - Be forewarned that I have no experience with reviewing album articles, so I don't have great knowledge of what is expected.
- Two fair-use images is going to cause a problem at FAC, where minimal use is becoming widespread. Consider dropping the DVD and just having the album cover; if a second image is needed, maybe use one of Stefani. Oh, and the "most famous" bit in the music sample caption may cause POV concerns. Y DoneTezkag72 (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- "released on October 10, 1995 (see 1995 in music)," First, the comma after the parenthesis could be removed. The 1995 in music link can be put in a See also section before the references to get it out of the way. I sense that moving links like this to the bottom will become the next big FAC trend. Y DoneTezkag72 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Background: "No Doubt released its debut album No Doubt in 1992" This is a redundancy. Here's a great way to remove it: "No Doubt released its self-titled debut album in 1992". That removes the redundancy while keeping the link destination clear. Y Done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Eric Stefani did not like to relinquish creative control to someone outside the band..." Perhaps try "Eric Stefani did not want..."? done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comma after The Beacon Street Collection. Y DoneTezkag72 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Production: "and was interested in mixing No Doubt's new album. After mixing the first single, "Just a Girl", Palmer went on to mix the rest of the record." A lot of mixing going on here. FAC reviewers never like to see repetition, meaning that I suggest modifying this. done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- The US dollar link can be removed, as similar links are typically deemed unnecessary in US-based topics. done -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the comments above are nit-picky, but doing them now will save aggravation later. Hopefully you'll find them helpful. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
(Peer review added on Friday 31 October 2008, 14:26 UTC)
- Article (edit) • Article talk (edit) • 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 foun
Done