Wikipedia:Peer review/Archive 5

Started in February 2009[change source]

Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata[change source]

Hi, I want to nominate the Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata, so I need a review before do that. Thanks. --Tincho GELP (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A decent start, but there are some fairly big issues:

- Several redlinks, which need to be either delinked or created.
- Most of the content does not have any references.
- The writing is pretty complex, including some very long sentences.

Hope this helps, –Juliancolton (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rickrolling[change source]

I want to have Rickrolling reviewed because I want to get it to GA status soon ѕwirlвoy ₪ 18:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be rather short. en:Rickrolling has loads of info that might be of use. –Juliancolton (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started in March 2009[change source]

Assuming this is an informal review. I'm very aware of the redlinks, which I shall provide articles for in the near future. I'm more looking for a review of the content of the page. Would appreciate any input. :) FrancesO (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started in July 2009[change source]

Graph[change source]

I'd like this article to be reviewed. This is my first substantial update since joining SEWP. In particular, do you believe that the section "How to Draw a Simple Graph" is acceptable for Simple English? On the regular English WP, we have a rule prohibiting anything that smells like an instruction manual. But I could not see how to phrase this without loosing the "Simpleness" of the section. Anything you can suggest would be of help.

Please comment on anything else you want as well. Thanks. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started in August 2009[change source]

Ohio State University[change source]

I'm trying to eventually get this to a GA. This is my first time bringing an article I've extensively worked on here, so I could use a lot of feedback. I'm sure it needs a bit of work. All constructive criticism welcome. hmwith τ 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will review tomorrow. Pmlineditor Talk 17:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reviewed. Pmlineditor Talk 16:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Done by me. Barras (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started in September 2009[change source]

Hurricane Luis[change source]

Hurricane Luis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I the article about Hurricane Luis should have a peer review. The article is about 6 kilobytes long, however it covers many of the subjects mentioned in its English article. The article also seems to have few, if any complexed words. --12george1 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braille[change source]

Braille (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I discovered this article a few days ago, and have since edited it heavily.It is currently about 18k in size, which should be enough to make a good article. The main problems I see so far is that referencing is currently non-existent, and that the EnWP article is similarly bad (in that respect). Parts of the article may also be hard to understand, simplifying here and there may be helpful. Anyway, I thought I'd list it. --Eptalon (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No references and complex language, as you even mentioned. Articles that do not approach the GA criterion should be listed at WP:PR, please. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the GA nominations page, feel free to improve, be warned though, it is a lot of work. --Eptalon (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimicry[change source]

Mimicry (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Part of a splurge on evolution-related articles for Simple. It seems to meet the criteria; the complexity has been deliberately restrained to topics that might be raised in school or beginning university courses. That might or might not meet approval. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started in November 2009[change source]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask. Could someone check if my changes to PAL (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PAL&action=historysubmit&diff=1826444&oldid=1693889), are suitably worked for this project? The only word not in the BE 1500 list that I have used is 'brightness'. I could not think of another word for brightness. Csmiller (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]