Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Arts

[edit] Sum 41

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

I've listed this article for peer review because i've braught the article from a c class to a Good article, and want to know how well the article is.

Thanks, - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 12 October 2008, 00:43 UTC)

---

[edit] List of Sailor Moon episodes

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Featured List status.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 11 October 2008, 19:46 UTC)

---

[edit] Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation

Previous peer review

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

How I haven't been to this page, once an FA target of mine, in quite some time. And with my new Bellflower obsession on the rise, I haven't even got the time any more. I'll try to see if I can improve it with whatever comments you can provide with below. This time, I'll make it a GA at most.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 10 October 2008, 23:54 UTC)

---

[edit] Veronica Mars

Previous peer review

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

I've listed this article for peer review as a newly-promoted GA, that User:Cornucopia and I hope to improve to FA status. Note that the article has been extensively revised since the prior peer review.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, for those reviewing the article, please treat it like a(n) FAC; i.e. be as harsh and strict as you can be! ;) A "support" or "oppose" would also be good, so we know whether you would support or oppose it at FAC. Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk Â· contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 9 October 2008, 01:59 UTC)

---

[edit] The Bellflower Bunnies (season 1)

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

Now that I'm done with this list, it's off to the season pages. Though only a realllllly short debut season (Seinfeld, anyone?), this could be another FL in the wings. The references should definitely pack a punch as well.

Look out for the next two seasons within a week or so.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 8 October 2008, 20:06 UTC)

---

[edit] Megadeth discography

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

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

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

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

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

---

[edit] Supergrass discography

Previous peer review

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

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

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

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk Â· contribs)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

[edit] Mark Speight

Previous peer review

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

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

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

[edit] Giggy

Jbmurray, who went through the whole article, removing apparent plagiarism, would be the one to speak to here. I actually agree with the quote anyhow. Partying is the exact wording used by Speight. -- how do you turn this on 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone else changed all of those. I had it as Collins' too. -- how do you turn this on 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Collins's is right; Collins' is wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] David

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

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

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

I replaced the first photo with the second one, since the second one is more descriptive, showing him actually doing some of his work. -- how do you turn this on 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have kept the second one over the first too, and approaching the foundation seems a sensible step Fasach Nua (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Flickr had nothing last time I checked (during the FAC). Giggy (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And Image:SeeitSawitBBC.jpg needs an expanded FURG. Giggy (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you could say what needs adding, I'd be very grateful. -- how do you turn this on 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Escape Artist Swyer

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

More if I think of any. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer}^Talk_{Contributions} 18:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dweller

I thought it was pretty good, but just needed some fine-tuning by an uninvolved copyeditor. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It did have several people copyedit it though, which was why I thought that suggestion wasn't particularly useful. -- how do you turn this on 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm surprised. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

[edit] Keating!

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

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

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

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

---

[edit] I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

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

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

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

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

---

[edit] List of House episodes

Previous peer review

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

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

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

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk Â· contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

I've increased the lead a bit, added an image and added (and deleted) some references. The list might need a bit more referencing, but it's much better. As I said before, a little bit of information would look better if you list it for FLC.--Music26/11 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the TVJab reference with a Washington Post link. Hope that's sufficiently reliable. :-). I'll be happy to add more references. Should individual episode reviews be linked here, or in the articles in question? See my recent edit to Dying Changes Everything for an example. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice referencing, I think induvidual episode reviews should be included in the article in question.--Music26/11 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

[edit] Strawberry Fields Forever

Previous peer review

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

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

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

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk Â· contribs)

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