- 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 August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi guys, I'd like to request a peer review of Hekla. I've already run the script and fixed many of the issues (apart from prose quality). I assume I won't be able to get it to FA without more sources as some of the sections can't really claim to be comprehensive yet, so maybe a review before going for GA might be appropriate. Issues I'd particularly like some advice on (although anything is welcome):
- What to do with the many small paragraphs on particular eruptions etc - is there a logical way to divide them up?
- The article is quite long and so could be split up, the obvious candidates would be the longer eruption sections. Is this necessary?
- The article is quite dense with numbers in parts. This is partly because I've tried to summarise but could affect readability. Any thoughts?
- A general read through for clarity.
Thanks a lot, and feel free to request a peer review from me in exchange. JMiall₰ 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- What if there was a List of Hekla eruptions then summary style could be used (1980s), especially for the minor eruptions?
- So would you suggest essentially copying the entire eruptions section to the new main List of Hekla eruptions article, refering to it with a {{main}} template and having say one paragraph per major eruption or group of minor eruptions in this article?
- Well, the list could be sortable and have columns for start and end date, volume produced, comments, etc. Just an idea, then use WP:Summary style in this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I also would think about combining some of the short paragraphs (one or two sentences) and sections, or perhaps expanding them. For example, could Name be added to Reputation?
- I've done some of this but will wait now if much of this is going to end up in a list article
- Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. {{convert}} may be useful here
- This is going to take some work! I'm tempted to claim the 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. I'll think about this and probably ask on the talk page.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Well spotted.
- Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
- Done
- Per WP:HEAD don't use & in a header
- Done
- Pop culture is a bullet list, should be converted to text
- Done
- Mount Pinatubo is a srtatovolcano FA and may be a useful model for ideas and examples, there are probably other models.
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 ><>°° 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thankyou. I will do. JMiall₰ 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)