User talk:Jappalang/Peer reviews

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Well, since I just got roped into this and I have my reputation to maintain ;) I've got stuff to do tonight, but I'll be sure to throw a mess of comments and harsh criticism your way tomorrow. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

actually, I lied, I don't have time to post comments right now. I've printed out the article (12 pages with all the refs!) and will get back to you tomorrow. Good day, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Ninja Gaiden at some stage (long articles...eek!), but if you have the time, could you possibly take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Age of Empires at some stage? Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for you comments and suggestions on the above article that is now a Featured Article. Your assistance during the review process was much appreciated and helped make the article what it is today.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've listed Project Sylpheed for peer review so the article can get more input. After that, you or I can nominate it for featured article status, if you agree. Kariteh (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the PR is about to come to an end I am (albeit slowly) starting to give serious consideration to the commetns made. I have started by asking a ex-LoC member to look at the article and give me his opinion on the matter of a copyedit. If he thinks its nessicary I will go ahead and extend the same treatment to the other two articles (Missouri and New Jersey) to reduce the overall content and repetition. I wanted you to know about this since I assume you would have said the same thing during the PR for Missouri. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really regular, no. I think that the review goes beyond the question of deletion, though, and can easily address the content of the article either pre- or post-merge. :-) Kirill ^(prof) 02:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the majority of the suggestions you made during the peer review of Warwick Castle. I'd like to thank you for your valuable input and for going to the effort of reading the sources provided (not an easy task, I know how turgid the main source is). Your contributions have greatly helped. I would like to take the article to WP:FAC (probably after a copy edit) but regardless whether the article is recognised as an FA, your comments have been important in improving it. Thanks again. Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thorough review - it's much appreciated. I've been working on this article for so long now that it's becoming difficult for me to trim further, so it's fantastic to get some further inspiration. I'll look at acting on your suggestions within the next couple of weeks, as we bring the article ready for a peer review. Thanks again! Gazimoff 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to look at the article and make some comments - just to let you know though, I am self taught on covered bridges and not an expert on them or bridges in general. I have a few things on my to do list, so it may take me a few days. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had the dedication/flexibility/lack of other things on my plate that Ruhrfisch has. (Then I could be featured on the signpost and get famous, heh.) Thanks for respecting my "we're closed for business" sign; hopefully I can be of assistance the next time around.. Scartol • Tok 14:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks very very much, i'll try and resolve all the issues asap, Tom B (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i shouldn't have struck of your concerns. I was getting over eager and it's easier to see what's left to be resolved, the sea point has been dealt with i think, Tom B (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC). also thanks for reverting my accidental deletion of Ruhrfisch's comments, i did a double-save by accident as i tried to pull it back to mark a minor edit and it potentially seemed to override an edit conflict which would be a bit weird, Tom B (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think i've done pretty much all of the comments on peer review, thanks for making the article better. i think i'll need to improve the sources and any more gaps before i take it to FA. let me know if you've got any ideas, Tom B (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review of Frederick III, German Emperor. I'll begin working on the changes and suggestions today. If there's something that needs to be discussed I'll bring it up on the peer review page. Thanks again! --Banime (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking through and beginning to address some of your concerns, and I just want to say that the review you provided is really great. It really is what I wanted, I've been too close to the writing and material for too long. Especially the help in the sections about his personal life I thought needed a lot of help and you did help a lot. I've started to address your points (some will take longer than usual, because I need to search for new references and such), but thanks so far on all of your help. --Banime (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all of your concerns now, you can see more on the peer review page if you're so inclined. However, you already provided a great review and I'd like to thank you a lot for all of the work you put into helping the article out. --Banime (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help (as you can see from the barnstar). It really was much more than I was expecting and I'm feeling confident about this article going all the way to FA now, as it's really great after your suggestions. I have a question that you may know the answer to, can it go to FAC while still under peer review or should I wait until its done? Thanks. --Banime (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I found the answer (can't be at the same time). I'll wait til the peer review is archived and then try for FAC. Thanks again. --Banime (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Restarting work on Luan Da is the next item on my to-do list, but I'm at a bit of a loss. Earlier, you said that the sources you had were from web pages and so you could not provide the pages, but I'll most likely be forced to cite pages at FAC. Do you have any ideas as to how to overcome this obstacle? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Is it possible to prove those websites reliable sources? Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The old trickster is now at peer review. It would be nice if you dropped in. However, I have one problem. I'm fairly sure that the article couldn't be considered complete without this information from the second source:

Luan Da was not his full name. History books tell of many minor characters with no full names, and so the birth order of some of these people was used to complete the name. For example, Luan Da's surname is Luan (栾) and was the eldest--the Da (大)--of his family; as such, he was called Luan Da. There were even more people, especially women, whose names were not revealed in the books. They usually were called by the surnames of their husbands. As such, it was considered sufficient that Luan Da had only his surname recorded in the history books.

But as you know, I can't use the second source because the Yahoo! group isn't reliable. Might you possibly have a solution? Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much! Finally, I can finish this article... Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here again... I simply put all the information in one pair of parentheses, separated by a semicolon. How does that look? Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds useful! Thanks. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I thanked you for your excellent peer review of WH40K. I haven't had a chance to address your concerns but I wanted to let you know that your contributions there were outstanding--they will help me push that article to FA class (Eventually). Protonk (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to review the above article at it's peer review?--TRU_CO 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that lenghty review, I have now addressed everything and I have gave replies on the peer review page, is it possible to take another look? Thanks.--Tru_Co 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied again :)--Tru_Co 03:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Before I actually take on a peer review on the article, I noticed some typos/misspellings that you might check. In sentence 3, "godess" is misspelled. In the third paragraph in the lead, the word "heartlands" (also in other places it is used) should be singular, "conciousness" and "gratuitious" are misspelled. In the last paragraph prior to the section "Tan Mui Choo, Lim's second wife", the word "harrased" is misspelled and in the first paragraph of that section, "consumated". Two paragraphs above the section "Rape and revenge", prostition, and in the next paragraph, "seeked" should be "sought" and "followup" should be "follow-up" (I saw that somewhere else, as well). In the paragraph before the section "Trial", the first sentence "the killings might had started" should be "have started". In the first paragraph of the section "Proceedings", "going-ons" should be "goings-on", and check to be sure any use of "Dr" is "Dr." In the paragraph before the section "Battle of the psychiatrists", "religon" is misspelled, and in the paragraph before the section "Closing statements", "schizophreniac" has no a in it and it also misspelled in the first paragraph in the Closing statements paragraph (schizhophrenia) and there is a typo in "accepted" in the next sentence. In the paragraph before the section "Judgment", "superstituous" (also in the footnotes) is misspelled, and in the paragraph before "Legacy", "thoughout" should be "throughout", shouldn't it? In the paragraph before "Footnotes", "personel" and "protaganist" are misspelled and "broadcasted" should just be "broadcast". I copy and pasted this into a Word document and ran spell check to start, so these are very minor things that will not take up the time of reviewers as the peer review goes on. I'll look more at it tomorrow.

One other point. I'm not sure that the title format is correct. WP:NC#Lowercase would seem to indicate that the title would be "Toa Payoh ritual murders". Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to peer-review this article. Just give me a day or so and I'll be there. Brianboulton (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will reread the article and comment on the slimmed-down version as soon as I can, which may not be before I tke my holiday break from 21 to 28 December - please be assured it is not forgotten. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've started, and have read and mildly copyedited down to the Tan Mui Choo section, losing a few more words. It's looking good so far - I'll try and do abit more tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've completed a copyedit, losing about 200 words of text in the process. I think there is still scope for cutting the final paragraph, about film adaptations, quite substantially. You need to see if my changes harmonise with other peer review commnets, but I think the slimmer version is a substantial improvement, and could be a viable FA candidate. I'll leave you to ponder. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your request at my talk page. Sorry for the delayed reply! Maralia (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jappalang! You deserve a barnstar for your excellent work on Toa Payoh ritual murders. As a younger Singaporean who was born ten years after the murders took place, I found the article a fascinating read.

Shall I strike a mutual peer review deal with you? Under this deal, I will do a thorough peer review of Toa Payoh ritual murders for you, while you will help me by peer reviewing two of the following three articles:

• I Not Stupid Too - currently on peer review and will go on GAN in a week
• Yip Pin Xiu - will file a peer review on 1 January 2009 after tying up some loose ends
• Murder of Huang Na - research in progress, will start writing soon and file peer review in late January

(I asked for two reviews because Toa Payoh ritual murders is currently 58 kB long and would take a couple of hours to review, but my articles are very short - I Not Stupid Too is at about 14.5 kB, Yip Pin Xiu is at about 8 kB and Murder of Huang Na will be around 10 kB long - and would probably not take more than 30 minutes to review. Perhaps you would be interested in Murder of Huang Na, a high-profile case with some similarities to the Toa Payoh murders.)

Do you agree to this deal? Then please let me know which two articles you choose to review. Feel free to review I Not Stupid Too straightaway; I will inform you when I file peer reviews for the other articles.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! First of all, I wanted to show my gratitude for your peer review of the article. It's been a looooong process. Second of all, I believe I addressed most (if not all) of your concerns on the peer review page. I don't know what the process with PR is, so I don't know if you need to go have another quick look, or what the next step is from here. Again, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. I forgot to thank you for your comments and your contribution to the Peer Review process. I really appreciate your advice and your observations. I hope you had a safe and happy New Year! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thorough review :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look at it, but it will likely take me several days. Covered bridges are almost always dry and not musty (the roof protects the wood inside - that's why they are covered ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

COngratulations on the FA! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Belated congratulations on the promotion of your Toa Payoh murder article. Would it be possible for you to assist me, by finding time to review Mozart in Italy, which I have just sent to peer review? In the past I have found your reviews particularly helpful in improving articles, and I would much appreciate your comments on this one. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you could spare the time to have a look at the rationale for this image, used in the article Muntz Street. It's currently licensed as PD-UK, but at the article's peer review, User:Brianboulton wondered if it might be PD-US. I put forward a suggested rationale which you can see at the peer review, and Brianboulton suggested your name as someone who could offer an opinion on its adequacy, should the article ever proceed to FAC. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your email. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, I try to move beyond video games (not that Star Trek is too far beyond it) and I still get pegged :P I'll try and do comments at the beginning of the week, I'll be traveling tomorrow. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to take a look at it, but it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my schedule is too full just now to take on additional work. I wish you well with the article! Scartol • Tok 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have left comments on the first couple of sections, on the PR page. I wonder, could I ask you to do a small thing for me? Could you go to Aurora's drift, look at the lead, and see if you can come up with a reformulation of the first sentence that doesn't contain the toxic "refers to", and doesn't repeat the word "drift". I've been trying for days without success - perhaps a fresh mind can crack it? Would you have a try? Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your Aurora efforts - most helpful. I must apologise for the delay in getting back to the Battle of Barnet, but I am being occupied by some bother on the talkpage of my current FAC Agrippina (opera). I hope it doesn't turn into an edit war.I will return to Barnet when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Take you pick. Either run through all 11,470 words of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, or review that sad and lonesome Uru: Ages Beyond Myst at FAC. :P I've got spotty internet for whatever reason right now, so I'll get back to the PR probably Wednesday, unless I have lots of homework in which case I'll probably finish the peer review due to inherent desire to not do homework. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye aye, PR set up whenever you can get around to it. By the way, think about archiving some old talk threads here :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'm kinda loathe to remove info, but I certainly see how you would consider some bits trivia. I'm probably not going have time to get through everything until the next Month (and hopefully the rest of my sources will have arrived by then), but I guess I'll try and solicit more feedback about what could be trimmed on the films project page or elsewhere. Pretty sure you can't buy an eight-foot long model of the Enterprise, but I've got a four-foot model I made out of cardboard for art school if you want that instead :P --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I can, but it will probably be a week or more before I can get to it. If you don't hear from me by Saturday 2 May, please give me another holler on my talk page. Scartol • Tok 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look at that! I got it done ahead of time. WOO! (There's a first time for everything.) Scartol • Tok 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have a look as soon as I can. If you don't hear from me before the 10th, please remind me. Scartol • Tok 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get to those questions as soon as I can. I'm all tired out from moving images around yesterday! =) Just kidding. I was sick this weekend and had to get grades finished for school. Soon as I can, tho. Scartol • Tok 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for the many delays — I finally got a chance to catch my breath, so I've responded to your questions and comments. As always, if you have any questions, ask away! Scartol • Tok 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang: Just wanted to alert you that I have posted some coments in your Bosworth peer review. Hope they are of some use to you. (BTW, I now see that you mention "House of York" in first para. But still think my York/Lancaster point has merit.) Hartfelt (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang: I looked at your edits on the Commanders section. Made a few tweaks. I think it's a real improvment by streamlining and adding the intro. I do, however, find the concentration on Wales confusing in the para about Henry. Why is this relevant in the commander section? Because most of his troops were Welch? Just seems a little ouit of left field as it stands now. Good luck and keep up the good work. Hartfelt (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have nominated Scream/Childhood for peer review. I would like to send it to FAC over the summer. Any assistance is appreciated. Any assistance or advise with the fair use material is especially appreciated. — R² 11:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your feedback. I agree the music video to "childhood" could go. I'll strength the rationals, per your advise. Cheers :) — R² 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In view of your earlier interest, as expressed on the article's talk page, you may like to know that I have now sent it to PR. Apart from prose issues, would you mind checking out the present range of images to ensure that they are A-OK? Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments on Symphonic poems (Liszt), which I've been laboring to incorporate. I suspect you're really busy, but if you have a chance, could you look at Choral symphony, which is currently in peer review? I've had a similar problem as in the Liszt article as to being too technical for non-musicians and have tried to tame down the article in this respect, but I could still use advice on what needs to be done to make it more user-friendly. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey if you're bored, could you take a look at Nintendo DSi for me? Any pointers (prose and content) would be nice. « ₣M₣ » 19:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So, basically what I'm looking at doing is cutting down on that spewed, fangled, non-casual-friendly "Launch info" if no real context can support it and the opening sentences that were in that section should be moved into "History" (which hopefully addresses its respective points), cut the excessive info in "Hardware"...and make "Reception" read like it wasn't inserted by some random non-... Err, never mind! Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you should know that I sent the BB to WP:Peer Review today. I can't thank you enough for the patient help you have given with this and the Smetana biography; I am in awe of your workload which, I see, currently includes steering Battle of Bosworth through FAC. I am looking forward to reading this in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're enjoying your break. Life goes on, and I have brought Lang to peer review. I have added somewhat to the images that you helped find, so perhaps, when you have the time, you'll check these out. Despite its right-facing, I think the Canterbury image is the one to show in the lead, as it shows Lang in his true pomp. Pity we can't use the Orpen, though. Brianboulton (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to have your note, and I hope the rest has done you good. I'll probably stick with the smaller Ward cariacature, thanks all the same. As to the map, let us see. This article has pretty well drained me, and I may just ditch the map if I can't establish the sources or find an alternative quite easily. There's time to decide this - the turbulent priest ain't going anywhere for a while. As to comments, take your time. Thanks again for all your help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, since you helped out a lot at finishing Bone Wars for FAC, I was wondering if you had any time you could provide comments for Edward Drinker Cope here? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the thorough review! The final couple of paragraphs I've still got to iron out and source; that's basically what remains of the article before I got to it and I suspect some of it might be hearsay or whatnot (plus whoever wrote it put in those damned curly quotes and I've been trying to excise them entirely for some time now). I haven't even gotten to looking for more images, I've got a few I want to scan out of some of my library's Cope books but those appear to be good resources too. Thanks again, what with all the Star Trek film articles I'd forgotten how much work and extra eyes these more academic subjects require! :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks again for the thorough review. The PR is now archived, but I believe I have addressed most of your issues. Could you take another look whenever you have the time? Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work and continual returns to aid this article. We will take your advice and put it forward for GA status. Yours FruitMonkey (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Hi and thanks for reviewing the article. I see what you mean about the book's image. I'll have to look into that. Do you have a link to the New York Times article you mentioned? Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that. I'll add them to the article. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done some more updates on The Whistler Sliding Centre for peer-review if you wish to look. Chris (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

More updates have been made per your request. Chris (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

More updates done per request. Chris (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued updates per request. Chris (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any more comments from you on this article in peer review. Is there anything else that I need to do other than what you have reviewed? Please advise. Chris (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, comments to be addressed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Matt Lawton/archive1. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I closed the two most recent PRs and left a note on the nominator's talk page asking him or her not to do that in the future. In the past we have let people reopen extras like this over a two day period (one tomorrow, the other the day after that). Thanks for all your help at PR, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your PR of Davenport! It is greatly appreciated! Is it ok if I strike your comments when I complete them, or is that something you should do, since they are your comments? CTJF83 chat 17:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to stay with tradition: let me decide if my concerns have been addressed (and personally strike them if so). Jappalang (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and for your valuable insights, I believe I have resolved the issues you addressed, but please let me know if I have missed anything. Thanks again. — GabeMc (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed the problem with external links, and I grouped cites of 5 or more, great advice, thanks, the article is much improved due to your input. — GabeMc (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and input. Is there anything else I should do before this Peer Review is closed, or do we give some time for others to weigh in? Also, do you recommend more than one Peer Review before FAC? — GabeMc (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the FAC nomination through, thanks for your help. It's says articles should not be on Peer Review and FAC at the same time, so I assume the Peer Review is closed, let me know if there is anything more I can do, thanks again. — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful analysis of this article. Hopefully we will easily pass FA thanks to your help...--Novus Orator 07:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions. I do have a few questions noted on the review page, if you can check at your convenience. KimChee (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the in-depth responses. I posted another round of updates on the review page. KimChee (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Medicine has there own manual of style as seen here WP:MEDMOS. Thus made a few rearrangements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the very complete peer review of Bartow, Florida. I've already taken care of some of the things in the list, but others will take some time. You obviously know your stuff... would you mind if I bothered you from time to time to with questions I may have about improving the article? VictorianMutant (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review. I believe I've responded to all your comments. upstateNYer 03:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First, can I thank you most sincerely for the efforts you have made in the past few weeks to keep the peer review system under control? I hate to think what the backlog would be without your contribution. Secondly, I have just sent Talbot Baines Reed to peer review, with a couple of image questions. I don't know what the correct licensing is for a signature; I have used the one from J.R.R. Tolkien, though the licence used in Cosmo Gordon Lang is quite different. And I have, for the moment, retained the gravestone image that was on the article before I expanded it, though something tells me all is not well here. Perhaps you could advise? And of course, if you can get to a prose review that would be even better, though naturally I will wait my turn. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I moved the article as you suggested. I am knocking out a lot of the things you are mentioning, but I would need time on the references and the tables (since I am not good at tables). About the lead section, it would not be a good idea to remove the fact that countries commented about the adopt of the symbols. In the books and papers I used as sources, the country comments were very key. I did change it to the following: "The reactions at home and abroad about the passage of this law was met with mixed feelings. While some Japanese hailed the passage of the law as a step toward the future, others felt that it was a shift toward restoring nationalistic feelings and education. In some countries occupied by Japan in World War II, they felt that the passage of this law, along with debates on laws related to military affairs and Yasukuni Shrine, was a shift toward the right. Other nations felt that the adoption of national symbols was an internal affair and every nation has the right to chose their own symbols." As for why I liked to keep the section about the schools in the lead, please see Flag_of_Japan#Public_schools. The suicide of the teacher did spur on the legislation, as http://books.google.com/books?id=o_CBbSl1NIcC&pg=PA184&dq=flag+suicide+Japan&cd=3#v=onepage&q=flag%20suicide%20Japan&f=false and http://books.google.com/books?id=aAI-G2EuBr0C&pg=PA44&dq=flag+suicide+hiroshima&hl=en&ei=8sS_TJfFNsL88AaY163XBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=flag%20suicide%20hiroshima&f=false point out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

About the "summary," I am taking a stab at what law articles are like and I am trying to make it similar to Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The transtitles are done, copyedit check asked for at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Act_on_National_Flag_and_Anthem_.28Japan.29 and to work in the vcite. If the article is not using vcite for the books, then I will run them through http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php. I am trying to make the references like Flag of Japan, which was my last FA that I did. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done with my edits and peer review. Feel free to revert any of my changes if you don't care for them. Good luck! --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a few more changes in response to your recent edits. Hopefully they are OK and don't change the meaning. Nice work. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you check back on Mount Cleveland? Thanx, ResMar 03:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When you have a moment, I'd greatly value your opinion as to whether use of File:Cruttwell.jpg can be justified with a fair use rationale on the biographical article C.R.M.F. Cruttwell. My reasonin is (a) the article is about Cruttwell and the reader is helped by knowing what he looked like, (b) his appearance is discussed in the article, particularly in connection with his relations with Evelyn Waugh, (c) there are no other images of Cruttwell available, free or otherwise. It seems to me that the case is strong, but I tend to follow advice on such issues. If you are able, please leave comments here, on the PR page, where the article will lie awhile. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You kindly supplied your comments on this and other isues at the peer review. The Cruttwell article has now been sent to FAC, here; should the image issue arise here, I should be most grateful for your contribution to any discussion. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. Would be able to shed some light at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pathlight School/archive1#Reference formatting in Pathlight School: patronymics? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful, informative comments. Best, Cunard (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for responding to the Silver Reef, Utah peer review. I've left a couple comments on the review page regarding the images, but I'll get to working on everything else as soon as I have more free time. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input at ongoing peer review. Perhaps you could give the article a full review? It will go on GAN soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution at the Michael Sheen peer review page. I've removed most of the references that you flagged as unreliable. I have attempted to defend some of them and would be grateful for some feedback from you as to whether my defenses would be sufficient at the FAC stage. Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed your input in this peer review a few days ago, and started editing the article with regards to some of your suggestions, but also reply to your comments in the review. If you'd be willing to review my reasoning, see which you agree with and which you don't, that would be appreciated. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang. Thank you for the rugby union positions peer review, it has helped a lot. I have utilised some of your suggestions and tried to reword other areas. AIRcorn (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Aye. I'll be traveling a bit on the 'morrow, but I'll try and take a good look and letchoo know what's up when I can. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you again for your peer review of William S. Clark. I have worked through most of your suggestions but become a little bogged down due to lack of time. I hope to get to the remainder very soon. Didn't want you to think that your comments were going unheeded. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with your responses to my PR points, and feel that the article is fully ready for a run at FAC, where I will no doubt raise a few more nitpicks in the name of due diligence. One small favour: someone has nominated Fridtjof Nansen for TFA. I'm quite happy with this, but am unsure about an image, File:Brothers in misfortune.jpg that has been aded since the FAC. Could you take a look, and let me know if you think this image, on the basis of the information provided, is PD in the US? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To tack on my response, it looks pretty good! I wanted to run through it once more with fresh eyes but I don't see any big issues that would bomb an FAC nom. Lemme know when you put it up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have the time/energy to FAC Review Conan, but I would like to congratulate you on the depth and quality of research, and the apparent quality of the article from skimming. In particular your citations look well cared for from the most cursory of surface glances. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I could really use a fresh set of eyes on Halo: Reach at peer review. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a boatload. I'll let you know when I've hit all your points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Georges Bizet (remember him? You helped me with some image issues a while ago) is at peer review now. I have added more images, got rid of some inferior ones, and would welcome your views on how these look now. Of course, any general comments you have on the text or other issues would be equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Now at FAC, for your information. Would you mind commenting on/reviewing the images there? Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I am currently working on Amundsen's South Pole expedition, with a view to getting it through FAC in time for it to be TFA on centenary day, 14 December. The article is currently on peer review; it article has 15 images, and I'm pretty sure that all of them are PD, though possibly some licences may need attention. If you could briefly look at this aspect I'd be most grateful, as I'm anxious to try and deal with any possible problem areas before rather than during the FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Updating: the article went to FAC today. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have addressed your concerns (or in some cases, questioned them). Thank you for taking the time to review the article. — Joseph Fox 12:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And again. Thanks. — Joseph Fox 14:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jappalang,

When you peer review, please make sure you don't be too overly negative (i.e. This is a bad choice..., The biggest flaw I see is...). Instead, please consider using "constructive criticism"; don't be too negative, don't be too positive, just be neutral and assure that the article will make it to GA or FA status. You can say: "I like your work on the article so far, but some issues I see that need work are..." Is Ruhrfisch your peer review rival or something? Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 21:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have replied to Bulldog73 on his page (per my standard practice),[1] but it bears note that this likely arose from Wikipedia:Peer review/Pillow Pets/archive2. Jappalang (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing at Bulldog73's talk page. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you peer reviewed the Michael Sheen article a few months ago. I've submitted it for a second peer review and would appreciate your feedback if you have time. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)