This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, at this point in time, the article is progressing well, but could really do with some comments by neutral editors who have a tad more "distance" from the work than we do, and thus can better evaluate any strengths or weaknesses. I'm hoping that it is getting close to featured quality now, and any advice to help get it closer would be greatly appreciated. :)
Thanks, Bilby ( talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from JamieS93
I know this might not be all that thorough, and I'm not experienced with peer reviews, but here's what I noticed when looking through the article:
So that's what I noticed when taking a look at the article. The prose seems to be decent, I don't know about FA-quality, however, didn't take a close enough look at it (the article would probably need a good copyedit reviewing anyway, to reach that higher standard). This type of article does seem like it would be hard to bring together as a well-organized piece, not a messy random pot of information; you and your project seem to have done a nice job with that, though. I hope this helps! Jamie ☆ S93 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief comment from Ruhrfisch I agree with Jamie93's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, at this point in time, the article is progressing well, but could really do with some comments by neutral editors who have a tad more "distance" from the work than we do, and thus can better evaluate any strengths or weaknesses. I'm hoping that it is getting close to featured quality now, and any advice to help get it closer would be greatly appreciated. :)
Thanks, Bilby ( talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from JamieS93
I know this might not be all that thorough, and I'm not experienced with peer reviews, but here's what I noticed when looking through the article:
So that's what I noticed when taking a look at the article. The prose seems to be decent, I don't know about FA-quality, however, didn't take a close enough look at it (the article would probably need a good copyedit reviewing anyway, to reach that higher standard). This type of article does seem like it would be hard to bring together as a well-organized piece, not a messy random pot of information; you and your project seem to have done a nice job with that, though. I hope this helps! Jamie ☆ S93 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Brief comment from Ruhrfisch I agree with Jamie93's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)