Wikipedia:PR.html



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

Arts

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Previous peer review

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because this article was formally featured and even on the main page once, but has since fallen from grace. I would like to fix that.

Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the usual grammar-style peer review is needed here. I think a specific section by section of what to add and what to cut would be best. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 6 January 2009, 04:21 UTC)

Gillender Building

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… it should be an interesting reading (I hope) but it needs third opinion, copyedit, probably more modern sources. This is a weird and, in my opinion, already comprehensive story of New York's shortest-lived skyscraper (13 years from completion to demolition). Created a week ago, copyedited by User:LilHelpa but suffered another round of expansion afterwards.

Thanks, NVO (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 5 January 2009, 10:18 UTC)

Bride of Frankenstein

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take this to featured status and need some advice on how to get it there.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Saturday 3 January 2009, 04:25 UTC)

Andrea Guarneri

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because… This is my first proper article, and I just want to make sure I am doing everything right. I would like to write more biographies of violin makers in the future. I realize that some pictures would be nice, and I'm working on that.

Thanks, Chickpeana (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 17:33 UTC)

Ringo Starr

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm trying to improve all articles on The Beatles' personnel to GA status. Therefore, I would like input on how I can get this to GA status.

Thanks, Dendodge Talk^Contribs 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article is broad in its coverage, and it seems stable and neutral. However, in some other areas it falls short of GA. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

• The lead of a Wikipedia article should summarize the whole article. The existing lead does not begin to do that and should be expanded. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the central ideas in each of the main text sections. Please see WP:LEAD for more ideas.

• Large parts of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that is unusual or might reasonably be questioned. I'll just give one example: "Starr generally sang at least one song on each studio album as part of establishing the vocal personality of all four members, a quality that is rarely seen in other bands." The "at least one" claim and the "rarely seen in other bands" claim need sources.

• Fond of The Beatles as I am, the writing seems less clear in the lower sections than in the top sections. I find the level of detail in the lower sections a bit much in places, and some of it is confusing. An example would be "In fact, Rotogravure turned out to be Starr's last top 40 album in the US to date peaking at #28 on Billboard and the Single turned out to be the last top 40 single in the US in the 70s 'A Dose of Rock And Roll'." This has so many qualifiers that it's hard to understand what it means. "To date" is ambiguous, and it's not clear whether "last top 40 single in the US in the 70s... " refers to all records or just Starr's records.

• The Manual of Style (MoS) generally deprecates orphan paragraphs consisting of only one sentence. The existing article has a lot of them, and I think most could easily be combined with other orphans or bigger paragraphs.

• The MoS deprecates fancy quotation marks such as those used in "Drumming ability and appreciation". I see other minor errors or breaks with the MoS throughout the article. A copyeditor familiar with the MoS could probably catch and fix these.

• Some of the citations are incomplete. If possible, they should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. It's not always possible to find all of these, but citation 2, for example, has nothing but a title and an url.

• Not everyone will understand all the special terms and jargon. Examples just from "Drumming ability and appreciation" include "tonal rings", "drum kit pattern", "the bridge", "hi-hat rolls", "snare drum", "B-side", and "maracas". These could be linked or explained.

I hope you find these brief comments helpful in your pursuit of GA. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Friday 2 January 2009, 15:24 UTC)

Sideshow Bob

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I'm going to take this one to FAC, hopefully by the end of the month. All comments welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I made some tense and punctuation corrections, and the format and referencing look fine. My only major comment is that sometimes the charactor and reception info is repeating the appearances info, one example being the repetition of the HMS Pinafore stalling Bob to be arrested at the very end of the Analysis section, which is already in the appearances. Reywas92^Talk 03:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 January 2009, 21:45 UTC)

Bohemian Rhapsody

Previous peer review

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

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make it an FA and I would like some feedback on it before nominating. Is there anything seriously wrong? Are thee enough refs? Thanks, TopGearFreak 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a and ask someone to copyedit it before going to FA. As I wrote some of this, the prose will be far from perfect, and some people love displaying their perceived superiority by pointing that out in aggressive terms. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep to reliable sources. Forums and fan pages are not reliable sources, and there's no way they would pass at FA. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• The table of chart positions should be in alphabetical order (see Wikipedia:Record charts), and I think they should be sourced to reliable sources on every one of them.Frcm1988 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Thursday 1 January 2009, 14:05 UTC)

Discography of Final Fantasy VII

Previous peer review

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

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

I'm bringing this article for a second PR in order to prepare it for a second run at FAC. Any comments to improve the article would be helpful!

Thanks for helping! --PresN 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The reception section is too long and should be split into subsections. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the reception information for each album should appear in their respective sections, like in List of Final Fantasy compilation albums. The legacy information can stay in its own section entitled "Legacy". I think it will be easier to read the article this way. Also, shouldn't the article be named "Discography of Compilation of Final Fantasy VII" or something similar considering it covers all the titles in the compilation and not only FFVII? The Prince (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

FFVII is not part of the Compilation of FFVII, so the current name is okay (with FFVII taken as the series rather than only the first game). Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be called Discography of Final Fantasy VII and Compilation of Final Fantasy VII instead, because the current title implies that it's the discography of the original game. PS: I added a free use image of Uematsu in the article; I wrote "fair use" in the edit summary by mistake. The Prince (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm fine with either FF7 or CoFF7, but not both together. It's hard enough to keep the term 'Final Fantasy 7' out of the article- at one point the intro had about 8 'FF7's per paragraph, as SE shoves it into every album title. I'm also not sure about moving the reception into each album- it might work, but it also would make it even more listy, and I'm trying to keep this as an article, to match the other ones. --PresN 21:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. If you were to change it, however, it would look something like this, which IMO is a lot easier to read. If you take the article to FAC, some reviewers may complain about some of the sources used, specifically RPGFan. It was just recently removed from WP:VG/S, although a discussion about its inclusion has been initiated here. Also, why aren't the full titles of the albums in the headers, and why aren't they in italics? The Prince (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The full titles got removed during the last FAC, one of the reviewers (SandyGeorgia) objected to the repetition of 'Final Fantasy 7' in the section headings, and I de-italicized them at the same time since they weren't the full album name but rather a descriptor. Hmm... I'm tempted by the layout you proposed- that is a lot less blocky. I think I'll go with it, and try to expand the legacy section out more to make up for the loss there, if I can. As far as RPGFan... there's nothing I can do. They're video game soundtrack albums. No one reviews them except for RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online, and Soundtrack Central- and they're all right on the line between legitimate review source and fansite, with SC being definitely over the line. Even the reviews of the games tend not to mention the music. If there were any other reviews I'd gleefully accept, as I'm not looking forward to another fight about it at FAC, but I work with what I've got. --PresN 00:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 22:40 UTC)

List of Weeds episodes

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've made a ton of recent and major edits to it in the hope of getting it to FL status and would like the input of others to suggest additions in content (such as if the episode leaks discussed in the main article and the faux talk show Good Morning Agrestic should be included) or make note of errors (if the ratings section needs to be re-written, if the theme song/opening sequence sections need to be extended and if the episode summaries are appropriate).

Thanks, The no erz (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 15:32 UTC)

Alicia Keys

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to ultimately take this to featured article status, but before that, good article status. In the fear of this failing it's first GAN, I brought it here instead to get feedback and any further assistance.

Thanks, DiverseMentality 01:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello -- This looks quite good. One element I'd be interested in you expanding a little is this:"Keys recorded a theme song for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. She joined Joss Stone and Jay-Z on the effort, was approached by the presidential nominee according to The Times to record a track that will serve as a theme song for his campaign.[50]" What happened to the suggestion? Ibsensgirl (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice article! However, I think the Personal Life and Controversy sections at the end make it a bit disjointed. Can you include more personal life info before the 2006 breakdown? That might make it seem more flowing. Chickpeana (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 31 December 2008, 01:21 UTC)

James Whale

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to FA status and need some guidance about where best to focus my energy on improvements. I already know it needs more references and I'm continuing to work on adding those in.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 29 December 2008, 04:54 UTC)

Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral

Previous peer review

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up this article and I'd like to get it to featured article status. I would like a few more pairs of eyes to take a look and give me opinions in specific things such as the prose, are there any glaring omissions, check the copy etc.

Thanks,  LinguistAtLarge  23:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note. I've gone over the previous peer review and implemented everything mentioned there. Thanks!  LinguistAtLarge  23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please create all red links immediately. Very distracting.

• Yes, I'm working on that.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why are external links not present.

• I haven't found any relevant, external links that meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. When some are found, I have no problem with an external links section.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the Lead, (Spanish: Catedral Metropolitana). Here, Spanish need not be italicized. Italics should be minimized as far as possible.

• This has been taken care of (Thanks).  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• LEAD, 1st para, last line..Countries like Spain need not be wikilinked. They are very popular. Check throughout the article for such common word linking

• I think it is beneficial to link the first instance of things like this, because they are very important to the article. As a reader, it's easier to click the link than type "spain" into the search box.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• In this case, I have removed the link while reworking the lead.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is situated on the northern side of Mexico City's Zócalo atop the former Aztec sacred precinct and temple to Huitzilopochtli
  • Can you provide some context for Zócalo like is it a suburb, hill, neighbourhood etc..Kensplanet^T_C 05:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried to give some more context to this-- the Zócalo is the central plaza in downtown Mexico City.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the second Paragraph, I find a lot of Numbers. Can you reduce some and mention the most significant ones. Kensplanet^T_C 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I will work on this.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• REF2 (http://es.encarta.msn.com/encnet/error/Error.aspx?mesgid=500-7&url=http%3a%2f%2fes.encarta.msn.com%2fencnet%2frefpages%2fRefArticle.aspx%3frefid%3d761586713) is a deadlink. Anyway is MSN reliable?
• Are U sure REF1 (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/mexico/mexico-city-cathedral.htm) is areliable site? (Do ANswer this here) Kensplanet^T_C 05:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll look into these references. The first one is Encarta, Microsoft's encyclopedia software, not just MSN. I'll have to see if there is an updated link to the article. The second one may not be a reliable source. I'll look at it. I didn't add that reference, but I do think all the info there checks out.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you want the best review of the article, then may I suggest a review of History of Mumbai which I have nominated at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Mumbai/archive2 Kensplanet^T_C 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done :)  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  23:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  

(Peer review added on Friday 26 December 2008, 23:42 UTC)

House (TV series)

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I renewed the page and I think it's close to FA quality, but has a few things left to be taken care of. The crew section needs expansion, the DVD table needs referencing and there are problably things I have missed. All help is appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 22:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hm. I can't see any huge changes that need to be made. The only thing I noticed is that Cuddy and Cameron don't seem to be covered that well in the casting section. Reyk _YO! 10:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this looks fairly good, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The language is generally good but there are some places that are a bit slangy andcould be more professional / clear. Just in the lead, for example The show's premise was created by Shore, who got the idea for the curmudgeonly title character from a doctor's visit. "from a doctor's visit" is unclear - I assume it from Shore's visit to a doctor, but it sounds as if he was visited by a curmodgeonly physician. Or House received heavy critical acclaim ... is just unclear - I think it means very favorable acclaim, but am not sure. Or House is currently in its fifth season of broadcasting. should be just "As of 2009, House is in its fifth season. or perhaps The 2008-2009 season is House's fifth. Avoid "currently" as things change and "of broadcasting" was unneeded. I would get someone to copyedit this before FAC.
• Article needs more references, for example the first and third paragraphs in Series overview have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The third paragraph has several direct quotes without refs.
• Since one of the interesting things about the show are story arcs over a whole season or several episodes within a season, I would mention those in the Series overview section. For example, in the drug addiction section (which I would mention in the lead), why not mention the policeman who hounded House and his associates for most of a season? Or wny not mention the winnowing of 40 candidates to the new team here? Or the Selena Ward character romance?
• The ref here does not seem to fit - This was referred to jokingly in the season four episode "Ugly", in which a documentary crew follows Dr. House and his team throughout the episode. At one point House starts walking with his team and the camera crew follows, shooting in the "walk and talk" style. As House and his team are walking away, Dr. Foreman asks where they are going. House responds: "Walks look good on camera. They give the illusion of the story moving forward."[63] The ref appears to only be for the episode where this heappens, but saying that this is referred to here without a ref appears to be original research.
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so change things like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories".[125] Shore also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode[126]. Actually these two sentences could be combined to something like Creator David Shore won a writing Emmy in 2005 for the first season episode "Three Stories",[125] and also received a Humanitas Prize for the episode.[126]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Wednesday 24 December 2008, 22:44 UTC)

Lisa the Vegetarian

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I recently got it to GA status, and now I'm aiming for FA.

Thanks, TheLeftorium 10:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple copyedits to the article. I'm no expert, but the article looks very good to me. It is sufficiently sourced and well-written. Good luck at FAC. Reywas92^Talk 03:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for the copyedit! :) TheLeftorium 10:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is one of my favorite episodes, and this really is a good article. The only issue I had was the sentence "Giving up meat turns out to be a controversial decision, since everyone around her, especially Homer, seems to support the eating of flesh." is nearly word for word from the Simpsons.com episode guide. That may not technically be a copyright problem since it's short (but then again it may I don't know) but in an academic paper that may be considered plagiarism since it's not cited as a source for a quote. My biggest concern is that there are more like that in the article and that is the only one I happened to open and see. No you don't generally cite things in the lead, so it's better just to reword that probably. But make sure to check anywhere else in the article in case you or someone else used your sources wording accidentally without citing it directly. Even when cited you can't use their wording unless in a quote. Also it's a shame the humor of the episode can't be shown more clearly in the article, but I'm not sure how you'd do that and stay in NPOV. You really have to watch it or go to the Wikiquote entry to see the quotes online. I'm not sure how that page isn't a copyright problem either but I'm no attorney. - Taxman ^Talk 01:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I reworded that sentence a bit, and I think that's the only problem like that in the article. The humor is kind of described in the reception section (and yeah, the Wikiquote page has been flagged for a review of its copyright status). —TheLeftorium 12:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Tuesday 23 December 2008, 10:17 UTC)

Remember Last Night?

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I think if it's not at GA status it certainly has the potential and I would like another set of eyes on it before making the nomination.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts...

1. Can there be a brief description of "Production Code" in the lead section so the reader does not have to follow it to fully know what it means? Perhaps a small addition like "censorship guidelines".
2. Perhaps add the film years in parentheses after the title? For example, for Bride of Frankenstein (1935)... it's not imperative, but it helps give the reader an idea of what timeline exists.
3. "Laemmle agreed..." to "Laemmle agreed to excluding the word..."
4. For the dates, can you add non-breaking spaces between the month and the day?
5. For "Cast" section, do you think you could provide a brief description of each character? Something like "His Wife" is a good start... I think it gives the reader a chance to get an idea of who the actors played without actually getting into the plot detail. Again, not imperative, though. :)
6. The article says that the film got "mixed reviews". I assume this was an assessment based on the tone of the ensuing reviews? Is there any chance of finding retrospective coverage about the overall reception? MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "Commentary should also be sought from reliable sources for critics' general consensus of the film. These will be more reliable in retrospect." If you can't find anything, it's fine, but I think it is more accurate than trying to eyeball the approximate tone from the reviews in the article.

Hope these help! Do you feel like the well is pretty dry in terms of additional sourcing? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Monday 22 December 2008, 22:41 UTC)

Dynamic producer

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because it was once deleted for being a PR. I want it to sound less of a PR and more of an encyclopedic entry.

Thanks, Talentshout (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed much of the self-serving prose, took out unnecessary <br /> tags, and made some of the lists into prose. I noticed some reference links, which is a good start, but there's still more work needed.

Consider finding some of the actual magazines they mention, or other third-party books and websites not affiliated with the group, to ensure that the article has reliable sources. Make sure that claims in the text are verifiable, and look for both positive and negative opinions of the group in those sources to keep a neutral point of view. As Gogo Dodo mentioned on your talk page, try reading other articles—featured or good ones, if possible—about similar groups, and model it after them. Thanks, --an odd name 01:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 December 2008, 18:44 UTC)

Dangerously in Love

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to pass it to FAC probably before the year ends. The article has been peer reviewed once, but generated only a little feedback, though it had helped a lot. More comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Efe (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty good to me. I havn't done much FA stuff, but I think it should pass. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on the lead
  • "Other than Knowles' musical roots, the album explores hip hop and Arabic influences, courtesy of her record producers and featured guests." This is oddly worded. At this point, those unfamiliar with Knowles will not be helped by the phrase "Knowles' musical roots". Roots in what? "Courtesy of" is vague and not the best word choice here. Having an album "explore" is a bit odd too. Perhaps a better wording might be "The album blends Knowles' musical roots in ____ with hip hop and Arabic influences."
  • "the album polarized the reaction of critics" "polarized critics" reads more natural to me than "polarized the reaction of critics"
  • "Its lyrical contents dominantly portray love" What does "dominantly portray" mean?
  • "then-former group" Not sure what this means.
  • "the album has facilitated Knowles in becoming a viable solo star, as well as one of the most marketable singers, signing to" The scope of "the most" is unclear here. If of the band, then "its most" is clearer. Otherwise, "a viable and marketable solo star" is fine. "Signing to" is a misplaced modifier.
  • "accolades, as well as favorable criticism" Accolades == favorable criticism, no?
  • "worldwide, to date" No comma needed. "to date" will become dated. State a specific date (e.g. "As of December 2008, Dangerously in Love..."). BuddingJournalist 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    

(Peer review added on Sunday 21 December 2008, 09:19 UTC)

House's Head

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

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try for FAc again in some time, however there are a few things that need to be done, what I'm looking for is the following:

• Published reviews of the episode to expand the critical reaction section (perhaps someone with a Nexis account).
• A copy-editor who is willing to take a look at the article.
• Someone who can prove this source is reliable, or find a reliable source to replace it.
• Perhaps, not manditory, someone who can take a screenshot of the final scene of the episode (the bus reenactment), to replace the current image.
  

Any additional comments are welcome and very much appreciated.

Thanks very much, --Music26/11 17:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Unfortunately I am unable to help with any of the specifics requested above, except to point out a few rough spots in the prose (in lieu of a copyedit). Could you ask for help from WikiProject Television on any of these? I think this is pretty well done. Very briefly, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

• Be consistent about referring to characters. Why is it "Dr. Gregory House" and "Dr. James Wilson" on first mention, but "Dr. Chase" (why not "Dr. Robert Chase") and oddest of all just "Amber Volakis" (why not "Dr. Amber Volakis")?
• I would say more about Fred Durst's casting as the bartender - provide context for the reader (not everyone knows who he is or it is surprising that he acted well). Any reason for this "stunt casting" (is he a big fan of the show? friend of the producers)?
• This paragraph seems roughest During the preparations for the bus crash, the whole sequence was storyboarded.[12] Greg Yaitanes described stunt-coordinator Jim Vickers as "crucial" for the filming of this sequence.[5] The bus crash scene was filmed interior using a big spinning wheel (which Anne Dudek referred to as a "gadget").[12] This gadget was mainly the back of the bus, and could be turned 360 degrees to increase the authenticity of the scene.[5] For the rest of the bus, a greenscreen was used that surrounded the complete outside of the bus.[5] The shots