| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for two reasons.
1. This article's longterm goal is to reach featured status. Unfortunately, there is no work being done. Personally, I think it is due to the fact that there is no clear consensus on what to do to clean it up.
2. It has been 3 years since the last peer review. I think it is time for another.
Thanks, Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I am very doubtful whether the PR route is appropriate for the further development of this article. The last two peer reviews, in 2008 and 2009, were very short and completely bloody useless. Also, please note that articles do not have longterm goals, or goals of any description for that matter, being insentient blocks of print. If there is an editor that has as a goal the restoration of this article to featured status, than I advise him/her to make this a personal mission, get cracking, do something positive, rewrite the article or whatever parts need rewriting. Then ask for a peer review, maybe. That's the way that articles get improved. Waiting for "consensus" to point the way forward is a sure and certain formula for ensuring that nothing is ever done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- It looks all right, generally. I don't see why it couldn't reach FA status, unless there are active edit wars.
One thing you notice right off the bat is that there's a citation needed tag in the History section. That's not going to fly in FA, for sure. I can't find an appropriate reference, going to leave that to another editor for a week before removing it. Cbrittain10
* I think more citation is needed in the "Editing" section; this shouldn't be difficult, since you can simply cite to Wikipedia policies. I'm referring specifically to the first to paras, as well as the last para.
New page patrol is "a process by which newly created articles are checked for obvious problems.": Doesn't seem to need quotation marks.
Could use more wikilinks in the Editing section -- things like "semi-protected" can link to Wikipedia:Protection policy, for example. You may be able to find links for other wiki-terms, too. Perhaps "consensus".
In the Organization section, "Categories" could be wikilinked to Wikipedia:Categorization.
Wikilink "stub", too. And full quotation marks, not apostrophes, around it.
Wikilink "featured article".
Wikilink "WikiProject".
Under "Vandalism", wikilink "spam".
Last part of the first para of "Vandalism" needs citation.
"One particular criticism": Remove "particular"
Last para of "Vandalism" needs citation for the last sentence.
I'd argue that there's too much nesting in the "Nature" section, and would recommend simply deleting it and making "Editing," "Organization", "Vandalism", etc. their own top-level sections. I will see what I can do. Cbrittain10
Cite NPOV under Content policies.
"Dispute resolution" needs a bunch more citation.
Can "edit war" be wikilinked?
Wikilink "Village Pump"
Wikilink "Request for Comment"
Wikilink "Wikiquette Assistance"
"somewhat of a battle" is blubbery. "a battle" is ok.
Wikilink "Wikipedia Watch"?
I'm not sure what this means, and it's not cited: "A particular problem occurs in the case of an individual who is relatively unimportant and for whom there exists a Wikipedia page against their wishes." Are we saying it's problematic for people who are relatively insignificant but for whom there's a wikipedia page they don't want? Cite, in any case.
"The plaintiffs appealed to the Berlin state court, but were refused in May 2006." Cite.
Clarification needed tag under "Contributors". I'm frankly not sure why this is there, though.
There's a relevance tag at the end of the article.
I'd recommend going through the whole article and seeing what else should be wikilinked.
The "New users" section begins with "60%". Sentences shouldn't begin with raw numbers. Try to rephrase.
Move citation in the last para of "New users" to the end of the para.
Citation needed at the end of the third and fourth paras of the "Language editions" section.
"The Nature report also concluded that the structure of Wikipedia's articles was often poor." Cite.
The Explicit content section needs citations in the first couple paras.
"Sister projects - wikimedia" needs cites at the end, especially re: the "success" of Commons.
The "Satire" section is under-cited; most of Wikipedia's mentions on various shows are uncited.
"Related projects" could also use more citation at the end of the first and third paras.
- I've read through this, and generally the quality of the prose seems pretty good;
I would advise concentrating on fully citing the article, because there are clearly areas where it's lacking in that department. I'd also advise adding Wikilinks where appropriate, especially to Wikipedia policies described in the article.I don't see why it couldn't reach FA. It's quite comprehensive. But it needs some tweaking.--Batard0 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Author Comment Thanks Batard. I am currently editing the article to implement your suggestions. I will cross them out as I am going through it.Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 14:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)