Wikipedia:Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For the Public Relations FAQ, see Wikipedia:FAQ/Business.
For Peer reviews sorted by date, see Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date.
For information on Wikipedia press releases, see Wikipedia:Press releases.
Caution 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.
Shortcuts:
WP:PR
WP:REVIEW

The path to a featured article

  1. Start a new article
  2. Develop the article
  3. Check against the featured article criteria
  4. Get creative feedback ←
  5. Apply for featured article status
  6. 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:

  1. Add {{subst:PR}} to the top of the article's talk page and save it, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
  2. Within the notice, click where instructed to open a new peer review discussion page. If there is no such link in the notice, see this.
  3. Complete the new page as instructed. Remember to note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing.
  4. Save the page with the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your request to sign it. Your peer review will be listed automatically on this page within an hour.
  5. Consult the volunteers list for assistance. An excellent way to get reviews is to review a few other requests without responses and ask for reviews in return.

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:

  1. 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}}.
  2. 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/December 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.

Related pages
Topic-specific peer reviews (full list) Other peer reviews:
Purge server cache edit guidelines


Peer review requests that have received no feedback beyond a semi-automated peer review in two weeks are archived.
The following are peer review requests at least four days old that have received no feedback:


December 1 • Mediocre (album) • York Park • Petrevene • Periyar E. V. Ramasamy
November 29 • Saudi foreign assistance
November 28 • British Empire • List of mayors of Paducah, Kentucky
November 27 • Boys in Red accident • Jehovah's Witnesses • Key Sounds Label • John Calvin • Highlander: The Series (season 2)
November 26 • List of mesons
November 25 • Flag of Singapore • New York State Route 319 • Glock
November 24 • History of University of Santo Tomas
November 23 • Council of Keewatin
November 22 • The Lucy poems • Iloilo International Airport
November 21 • Igbo people • "Weird Al" Yankovic (album)
If you review one of these articles, please add {{doing}} to the peer review before your edits, and remove it from this list when done. (update list)

Contents

[edit] Arts

[edit] Black Holes and Revelations

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

This has a FAC back in August which was withdrawn as it wasn't really ready. I've been workong in the concerns listed there, but would appreciate more specific comments about which bits of the prose suck (and why - I'm no good at this copyediting stuff) and general areas for improvement. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks, THE GROOVE 02:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I get the feeling that the article is a bit... disjointed. You start talking about "Soldier's Poem" before the rest of the tracks in musical style. My suggestion would be to merge the style and content sections. The article is lacking context. I want to know more about the songs, but there's surprisingly little there. The reception suffers from too much quoting and not enough summarizing of concrete issues critics too, or praise. Don't just do postive/negative. Split it up by their sound, the content, et al. I think a major issue is that the article doesn't have enough sources. Go through newspaper archives to find print sources. Move the Charts section up to reception, so that the sales and charting information can be discussed critically in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You're completely right, I feel that way myself. It's as if a lot of the sentences don't really follow on from previous sentences and the whole thing is lots of little facts stuck together with no 'flow' or context. This writing thing is really damn hard. Heh. It's weird that I can't find more sources really, you'd think that anyone and everyone would be talking about albums released by a band this big. I will see what I can dig up, musewiki has lots of links to interviews and other reviews and suchlike so maybe I'll find something new there. THE GROOVE 03:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have access to a LexisNexis account, so if you want I can go trawling and send you PDFs of sources (it'll take a couple weeks, prolly.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be awesome, I'd really appreciate that. Also, I just found this which has a loooot of information about the recording and sound of the album. I don't know if it's strictly reliable though; they have scans of the magazine and obviously I'd cite the magazine, not the wiki, but sourcing rules are a bit arcane to me at times. THE GROOVE 03:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 5 December 2008, 02:40 UTC)

[edit] Gay Power, Gay Politics

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

I've listed this article for peer review because although it's new I believe it is at or near Good Article status and wanted another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 4 December 2008, 04:46 UTC)

[edit] Rushmore (film)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I have put a lot of work into this article and, aside from beefing up the lead paragraph, I would welcome any comments and/or suggestions on how to improve it so that I can get to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2008, 21:11 UTC)

[edit] X-Men Origins: Wolverine

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


I've listed this article for peer review because per WP:GT requirements, this has to be peer reviewed per bla bla bla. Read it here at criterion 3.c. This coincides with the X-Men films Good topic candidacy. Wildroot (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi. I came from the FT discussion. Per {{Cite web}} and {{cite news}}, references should use the same date format as the main text of the article. They have proper fields so it can be done right. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2008, 05:32 UTC)

[edit] Enter Sandman

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


I've listed this article for peer review so you can help me bring to FA status. It's been over a year since I've worked hard on it and most of the issues raised at the time, including copy editing have been addressed. I believe the article has no major flaws and it has the potential to become a Featured Article, but I wanted to bring it to peer review before taking that step.

Thanks in advance, Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 3 December 2008, 00:27 UTC)

[edit] 30 Rock (season 3)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to add it to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of 30 Rock, but as this season of 30 Rock is stil on the air, the article is ineligible for FL.

Any comments are welcome.

Thanks, [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 2 December 2008, 21:00 UTC)

[edit] Mediocre (album)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has potential to become an A-class (or FA-class) article. It has recently become a good article, and I would like to have feedback so it can be upgraded to at least A-class. If possible, I would love it to meet the criteria for featured articles.

Thanks a million, – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 1 December 2008, 01:22 UTC)

[edit] All That Glitters (TV series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that my recent expansion has brought it up to or near GA quality and I would like another set of eyes on it before I make the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there. I think what you've already got here is well-written and well-referenced, the only concern would be that the article is a bit short. Here are my suggestions to expand the article :

  • Could you provide some context for those of us who are neither American nor into soap opera ? How were "normal" soaps at the time ? How was the social context in which the series was produced ? (How did men and women relate to each other at the time, etc) Just a paragraph would be fine.
  • I realize the show is 30 years old, but would it be possible to dig up some information on the production history ? You say the show sparked controversy. If so, how did Lear manage to have it produced in the first place ? How did he get the idea ? How did they chose their actors ? Again, I know it's a 1977 show so maybe this info has been lost, but it would be interesting.
  • Could you provide an episode list (Title, director, writer, first aired date if possible) ?
  • Is there a DVD release ?
  • Could you provide a plot summary ? Also, could you describe the characters, what they do and how they relate to each other ? (And what is the name of the character Greg Evigan is playing ?)
  • Television/radio Age. 1976. Television Editorial Corp. : Format this reference like the others. If this is a book, I think you could find the ISBN somewhere.

I hope you find this useful. You might also want to take a look at Cheers and Doctor Who which are both FAs. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other thoughts :

  • Remove the red links
  • Television/radio age is a periodical, so you must mention which issue you used (number X, year Z) so that someone wanting to read the entire article you used doesn't have to skim through the entire series. Rosenknospe (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 27 November 2008, 23:23 UTC)

[edit] Highlander: The Series (season 2)

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


I've listed this list for peer review because it will enter FLC as soon as this PR is finished. I would especially like reviewers to look at the prose because I'm not a native English speaker and report any other problem so that they can be fixed before FLC.

Thank you for your time, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 27 November 2008, 13:40 UTC)

[edit] Key Sounds Label

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


I put this article up for a peer review so as to get creative feedback on how to further improve the article. Seeing as I cannot find any FA-ranked record label articles, and this article is (to my knowledge) the only GA-rated record label article, I cannot use another example article as a template. I was also wondering if the history section should be split into subsections since it's kind of long, though I'm not sure if that matters or not. Thanks, 十八 04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 27 November 2008, 04:16 UTC)

[edit] Michael Tritter

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FAc sometime soon. However, I feel the "storyline" section is too long and I would like some input on how to slim it down. Also, every minor edit, tip, hint, extra information, whatever is welcome because there are always ways to improve an article.

Thanks, --Music26/11 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there. You're right, the Storyline section is too long indeed, and the article lacks a Characterization/Characteristics/Character description section. So what you could do is split the Storyline into Storyline and Character sections. Basically the Storyline section is about what the character does, and the Character section is about what the character is. In the Storyline section you say things like "In "Words and Deeds", Tritter brings House to the court, etc." and in the Character section, you say things like "Tritter demonstrates stubborness and obsessive behaviour, etc."

  • Lead : the lead is supposed a summary of the article. There should be a mention of who is Tritter: policeman and having a feud with House and why; some words about his personality would be good too. Bear in mind that you don't have to reference what you say in the lead if it's already referenced in the article.
  • "somebody who could go toe-to-toe..." "the story seemed to drag on a bit..." "the exchange of words goes downhill from there..." are rather colloquial; try to avoid it and reword your sentences : "the dialog increases in intensity until..."
  • Check your links so that they point to the right article; for example STD, put sexually transmitted disease instead and check if there are others things to disambiguate
  • "House then talks to Wilson, who tells House that he told Tritter that he prescribes House's vicodin" : who told whom to prescribe what ? :D This sentence is confusing, it should be reworded
  • "Cuddy says that if this is true that it should be handled by doctors" : "Cuddy says that if this is true, (then) it should be handled by doctors"
  • "Tritter replies that the doctors at Plainsboro aren't dealing with it, they're covering it up" : Remove all contractions that are not quoted : "the doctors are not dealing with it, they are covering it up"
  • "2006, actor David Morse was contacted by David Shore, Morse and Shore had previously worked together on Hack.[18][2]": "In 2006, actor David Morse..." Did Shore contact Morse because they had worked together previously ? Make it clear, and put the references in order : [2][18]
  • "Tritter says he would rather "beat the crap out of" House than sue him, but an apology will do. However, House refuses to apologize." Shorten your sentences to avoid redundancy: "Tritter says he would rather "beat the crap out of" House than sue him, but House refuses to apologize."
  • Character development : the information should be organized by subject, i.e. A) How did they design the character, what was he intended for ? (annoy House) B) Who did they cast (Morse) and why ? C) Did Morse influence his character ? To which extend ? Did Tritter evolve after the casting or even the airing of episode ? D) Did Tritter leave a legacy ? Will he be remembered for something ? Did he make the series evolve? Is he referred to in other series or works of popular culture ?

Otherwise the article is well referenced with a wide variety of sources. You might also want to take a look at Khan Noonien Singh, a recent FA, to get more ideas. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 22 November 2008, 22:01 UTC)

[edit] Survivor: Borneo

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


I've listed this article for peer review because I want it featured. I spent a lot of time expanding it, and I'd like some comments to improve it.

Thanks, iMatthew 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • Unlink common terms like United States
  • ", it was then" – ", and then it was"
  • "season -" – "season," or "season—"
  • "filmed during 2000" – "filmed in early 2000"
  • I'm wondering if the summary should be written in present or past tense. Television series are in present because it's as if we're watching it when reading it, but I understand that this is past because these were real events that happened in the past. Something worth thinking about.

Gary King (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, and I'll make all terms past tense tonight. iMatthew 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it's already in past tense. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have some still in present, so I'll look it over again later. iMatthew 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from SRX [TRUco]
  • Before the change to Survivor: Borneo, the season was known universally as Survivor: Pulau Tiga, and then it was changed again to its present title to avoid confusion with the tenth season, Survivor: Palau. - instead of and then -->but it was changed to it's present title...etc. (because it is very repetitive.
  • The show was filmed in early 2000 and aired later that year on CBS. - why not stated the exact dates, as they are in the infobox?
  • When ten players remained, the contestants "merged" into one tribe, named Rattana. - is it necessary to have merged in quotations? If emphasis is needed, why not place it in italics or link to it.
  • At the second immunity challenge, contestants were forced to eat a typical Malaysian food called Butok, live beetle. - are you trying to say which is live beetle here? As there needs to be some word before live beetle to explain that.
  • B.B. Anderson was sent home from the Pagong tribe. - there is no transition from the previous sentence to this one.
  • Like in pro wrestling articles, I recommend linking somewhere the Survivor Rules.
    • How about in a see also section? iMatthew 22:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • By reading the first paragraph, I am lost. It would be better if at some points it is stated on what day the events took place.--TRUCO 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Done with everything, and a comment. iMatthew 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • The show began filming on March 31, 2000, ending on April 20, 2000, and aired later that year on CBS. - Reads slightly oddly.
  • After 39 days of competition, corporate trainer Richard Hatch was named the Sole Survivor, defeating whitewater rafting guide Kelly Wiglesworth in a 4-3 jury vote. - Hyphen to en dash.
  • Over 6,000 people applied for the show, however only eight hundred were interviewed in sixteen different cities. - "Eight hundred" → "800".
  • During the first night, neither tribe had a completed shelter, or a fire. - Remove the comma after "shelter"
  • Later on, Gervase compared women to cows, which Joel Klug laughed at. - Excessive detail.
  • Gervase however couldn't claim immunity on day 30, as Richard won, and Gervase was voted out. - Expand contraction.
  • The DVD release of season one was released by Paramount Pictures in the U.S. on 11 May 2004, after it had completed broadcast on television. As well as every episode from the season, the DVD release features bonus material including commentary, interviews and behind-the-scenes featurettes. needs a source.
  • Aside from that, an overall copyedit would be helpful. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. iMatthew 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 22 November 2008, 16:55 UTC)

[edit] The Lucy poems

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


Feedback needed at this stage. All comments welcome.

Thanks, Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 22 November 2008, 02:52 UTC)

[edit] "Weird Al" Yankovic (album)

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm pleased and satisfied with its state now, and would like to take it on to the next step. I've never taken an article past GA before, and would like to see what I can manage with this particular article.

My two concerns: (a) the article isn't very long and I don't know how that will affect it's reception, and (b) while I specifically like the two-columned track listing, it is non-standard and I don't know how that will affect it.

Thanks, — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 21 November 2008, 15:41 UTC)

[edit] Brad Pitt

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


I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from User:What!?Why?Who?

  • Very Detailed
  • Good grammar
  • Informative
  • Great article overall, but...
  • Could be a bit more neutral

--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but this really doesn't help the article at all. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Overall looks pretty good. Very briefly, here are some pretty nit-picky suggestions for improvement. Needs a copyedit to meet 1A of WP:WIAFA

  • Why no year for Twelve Monkeys in He starred in the well-received crime and science fiction films Se7en (1995) and Twelve Monkeys, and won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in Twelve Monkeys. Also the language could be a bit tighter here, perhaps something like He starred in the well-received crime and science fiction films Se7en (1995), and Twelve Monkeys (year), for which he won a Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor.
  • Avoid words like now, so Following a high profile relationship with actress Gwyneth Paltrow, and marriage to Jennifer Aniston, Pitt now lives with actress Angelina Jolie,... could be something like Pitt has lived with actress Angelina Jolie since date... or perhaps the old "as of 2008" could be added
  • I am a bit confused - was Etta his mother's middle name? Why not add "Pitt"the son of Jane Etta (née Hillhouse) [Pitt], a high school counselor, and William Alvin Pitt, a
  • If two or more sentences in a row use the same refs, then I think it is OK to just have one set of refs at the end (if there are no direct quotes or extraordinary claims in there). So fix for example Along with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal, he grew up in Springfield, Missouri, where the family moved soon after his birth.[7][8] Growing up, he was raised as a conservative Southern Baptist, singing in the church choir.[7][8]
  • Problem sentence - we already were told he moved to MO soon after his birth, so does high school need to start with the move there too? Fix to something like After moving to Missouri, where Pitt attended Kickapoo High School [in Springfield,] excelling at school[;] he was a member of the golf, tennis and swimming teams, as well as the Key and Forensics clubs.[8]
  • There are lots of places where the order of phrases is different than what I'd expect. Two examples: He took a number of odd jobs, once he moved to Los Angeles, ... would flow better as Once he moved to Los Angeles, he took a number of odd jobs ... or even After moving to Los Angeles he took a number of odd jobs... OR Along with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal, he grew up in Springfield, Missouri, where the family moved soon after his birth. could be something like The family moved to Springfield, Missouri soon after his birth, and he grew up there with his siblings Doug and Julie Neal.
  • Captions could be more informative, for example Pitt, who has been named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine could be something like Pitt was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine in 1995 and 2000.
  • This is just to point out some example rough spots - there are many more. Images and basic information looks good.
  • Refs generally OK, but watch that they meet WP:RS - is Yahoo really the best ref possible, is it reliable? Ref 126 Angelina Jolie - Yahoo! Profile". Yahoo! Search. Retrieved on 2008-05-16.
  • The lists of awards and roles at the end of the article have no refs at all - they will need refs for FAC.

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 ><>°° 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if I'm a little late to the party, but I just stumbled upon this PR. Some thoughts on this article:

  • "was cast in supporting roles in such standard teen-oriented films, slasher flicks, comedies and family-oriented sports dramas" What are "such standard teen-oriented films" exactly, slasher flicks is too informal, the whole sentence sound more like Entertainment Weekly than an Encyclopedia.
  • In the lead, his roles in Thelma & Louise and Fight Club are the only ones that have a description of his film character. Are those supposed to be the pivotal roles for his career? If so, it should be made clearer, otherwise the reader wonders why you don't elaborate on his other roles that are mentioned in the lead.
  • The text is pretty heavy on lists. Biggest commercial successes, odd jobs in LA, ex-girlfriends. Sentences that list more than three items should be uses sparely imho.
  • Critical commentary is often included with a very lengthy introduction ("In the Entertainment Weekly review of the television movie, critic Ken Tucker, wrote" could be just "Entertainment Weekly wrote" unless Ken Tucker is a particularly notable author).
  • Since Legends of the Fall earned him a GG nomination, it should be mentioned a bit more prominently. Overall, emphasis is not always ideal (Snitch has a whole paragraph in comparison).
  • "Rita Kempley of The Washington Post in her review of the film praised Pitt's performance as "impressive"" This offers no inside whatsoever, it's only function seems to be to praise Pitt, which is very POV.
  • "Pitt won his first Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor,[22] and received his first nomination for an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor." Since first=only here, this somewhat implies future GGs and Oscar nominations.
  • Oceans 12 is only mentioned very briefly. It should at least be made clear, that it's a sequel.
  • His involvement in producing The Departed must be explained more. It reads like he was the sole producer and he won an Oscar for it, but in fact he did not win an Oscar.
  • I'm not sure if the story of how he received this award from Venice should be mentioned at such length; I'm not certain it should be mentioned at all to be honest.
  • Overall, the acting career section does not include one negative review, which seems odd. I don't think you need to include negative commentary just to satisfy NPOV, but I think the included reviews should ideally reflect the critical consensus. Now I don't know all of Pitt's movies too well, but I would guess there were a few films that critics generally were not very impressed with him or the film he did.
  • "he was credited, along with his best friend Tiago Miranda Paulo, with " Who is Tiago Miranda Paulo exactly, and what's the source for the claim that he is his best friend, because the Time link doesn't even mention him.
  • The sources for him supporting Obama seem pretty weak; in both stories his name appears to be thrown in there rather randomly. To my knowledge, he did not publicly support any candidate, so I'm not sure this should really be mentioned.
  • Is there any other source to support the notion that he ever was a fundamentalist Christian. To me, this sounds more like an interpretation from the author of this article than anything he actually said.
  • My only big concern with this article: The length of the sections on Aniston and Jolie are very disproportional; his entire marriage of seven years only gets one paragraph (even the last paragraph on Aniston is basically about Jolie). Granted, a lot in the Jolie section is about his children, but this still makes it appear very unbalanced to me. It might also be seen as WP:recentism. I think either the children need their own section, or some more information about his marriage to Aniston has to be added to balance it out (my guess would be there are quite a few more notable things to say about the marriage than the ceremony itself, but I don't know too much about it really).
  • The awards section is pretty long. I'm not sure what the consensus on this is, but personally, I would radically cut it down to just GG, Oscars, Emmys, Venice and BFCA. I'm pretty sure he didn't show up to collect most of the other ones anyway.

I think the article is pretty strong as it is, don't take my long list the wrong way. I hope I can help out. EnemyOfTheState|talk 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 15 November 2008, 00:36 UTC)

[edit] Language and literature

[edit] List of Bleach chapters

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


I've listed this article for peer review because it needs advices on possible grammar advices as well as the structure of the list.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)
  • The chapter and volume titles should use proper casing, rather than keeping all uppers or all lowers, per usual naming/style conventions