Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking it through the FA process very soon, and I would like a third party to review it for any issues I may have missed. Because I work on a consulting basis with C-SPAN, and because I wish to follow Jimbo's "bright line" advice for editors with a paid COI, I should probably not make any direct edits here (I have not directly edited this article since late 2011). If you post a suggestion here, I can always seek another editor to help implement such changes, if you the reviewing editor would prefer not. Thanks in advance,
WWB Too (
Talk ·
COI) 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
A couple of brief comments in skimming the article:
|department=
parameter for such regular column/feature names, and The Wall Street Journal would then be the |work=
. (Also note that the paper's name does include The in the title; please check other paper names for consistency and accuracy on this matter.)|format=PDF
were included as not all readers' browsers will display the PDF icon for various reasons, so a more explicit indication of that format would be wise.|agency=
field of the template, and note that the AP doesn't include the The in their name. Footnote 72 has the same issue, but it correctly uses the wire service's same.|accessdate=
. At the moment, this may be one of the error conditions that does not display by default, but I am seeing it because I have the hidden error conditions visible. In the future though, this will likely be revealed to all editors and readers, so it should be fixed. Ditto footnotes 61 and 65. Either the access date is removed or a URL needs to be added.While citation formatting is a minor part of the presentation of the article compared to the actual information in the article, accuracy and consistent formatting goes a long way toward giving a reader a polished product. Please work with someone to update these issues before you nominate the article at FAC, or they're liable to be repeated there, potentially under an oppose !vote.
Thanks for acknowledging your COI and requesting peer review.
Looking through a Google News search suggests some other issues that might be in the article:
... and some articles, not behind paywalls, that might be used to source (and expand) existing claims:
... and, yeah, plenty more, just go ahead and look at that search.
On a side note—and I know the tide seems to be against it—using citation templates really increases the load time of the article and makes it difficult for people with slow connections to access. Simple handmade citations solve this problem as well as some of those listed above. Though I know it's a huge pain in the neck to go back and redo, and I certainly wouldn't demand something like that before "approving" an article or whatever.
OK, that's it for now. In general, a good article, well written and well sourced.
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in taking it through the FA process very soon, and I would like a third party to review it for any issues I may have missed. Because I work on a consulting basis with C-SPAN, and because I wish to follow Jimbo's "bright line" advice for editors with a paid COI, I should probably not make any direct edits here (I have not directly edited this article since late 2011). If you post a suggestion here, I can always seek another editor to help implement such changes, if you the reviewing editor would prefer not. Thanks in advance,
WWB Too (
Talk ·
COI) 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
A couple of brief comments in skimming the article:
|department=
parameter for such regular column/feature names, and The Wall Street Journal would then be the |work=
. (Also note that the paper's name does include The in the title; please check other paper names for consistency and accuracy on this matter.)|format=PDF
were included as not all readers' browsers will display the PDF icon for various reasons, so a more explicit indication of that format would be wise.|agency=
field of the template, and note that the AP doesn't include the The in their name. Footnote 72 has the same issue, but it correctly uses the wire service's same.|accessdate=
. At the moment, this may be one of the error conditions that does not display by default, but I am seeing it because I have the hidden error conditions visible. In the future though, this will likely be revealed to all editors and readers, so it should be fixed. Ditto footnotes 61 and 65. Either the access date is removed or a URL needs to be added.While citation formatting is a minor part of the presentation of the article compared to the actual information in the article, accuracy and consistent formatting goes a long way toward giving a reader a polished product. Please work with someone to update these issues before you nominate the article at FAC, or they're liable to be repeated there, potentially under an oppose !vote.
Thanks for acknowledging your COI and requesting peer review.
Looking through a Google News search suggests some other issues that might be in the article:
... and some articles, not behind paywalls, that might be used to source (and expand) existing claims:
... and, yeah, plenty more, just go ahead and look at that search.
On a side note—and I know the tide seems to be against it—using citation templates really increases the load time of the article and makes it difficult for people with slow connections to access. Simple handmade citations solve this problem as well as some of those listed above. Though I know it's a huge pain in the neck to go back and redo, and I certainly wouldn't demand something like that before "approving" an article or whatever.
OK, that's it for now. In general, a good article, well written and well sourced.