I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering a nomination for Good Article or Featured Article status. Suggestions for which path is more appropriate for this article are welcome.
I'm specifically looking for suggestions on section ordering, as well as overall article content - are some sections too trivial for an encyclopedia article? Are there aspects of the subject that should be covered in an encyclopedia article that are missing from or undercovered in this one? Suggestions for where the references need improvement (quality or quantity) are also something I'm looking for.
And of course any other improvements that need to be made to make this one of Wikipedia's recognized higher quality articles.
Thanks,
Lyrl Talk C 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A couple quick comments (not a full review). First, I commend the editors working on this article so seriously. I'm assuming this is a high-vandalism article so it takes a lot of patience. Kudos!
First, expand the lead as per WP:LEAD. As far as sections, I think you've done a great job: nothing seems irrelevant (though the "Other uses" section borders on it... but good sourcing overrides any complaint I might have) but maybe reconsidering the organization is a good idea. "History," for example, seems important enough to move up. Then, just a suggestion here, maybe move "Prevalence" into a subsection under it, renamed as "Prevalence today." "Etymology" might become a subsection here too, if you're so inclined. I wonder, too, if the Roman Catholic Church subsection belongs under "Role in sex education" - may there needs to be a "Controversy" or "Debates" section? You could throw the "Disposal" section under there too. Really, all of what I'm saying here is just off the top of my head; I'm assuming you'll put more thought into it and decide if it'll actually work!
I would suggest putting some consideration into the images. I actually think there are too many that don't tie in or at least seem out of place. Make sure the images are complementing the article's text, not just tossed in (the image from Buenos Aries is a good example: the article says nothing about it, so the image seems out of place). Images you don't end up using could be turned into a category on Wikimedia Commons, if there isn't one already. Also, consider moving a couple to the left so it's not so right-heavy.
Also, consider expanding why Somalia bans condoms... and add a source about condoms having negligible impact in landfills.
Anyway, great job here. Keep it up (no pun intended...)! -- Midnightdreary 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
A useful article with plenty of good, encyclopedic images. Agree the article needs some layout/section help. In general, I'd recommend using fewer headings; for this article you could "roll up" smaller sections into a bigger one. I usually don't do more than a ===Level 3=== heading. Under "varieties" use the following, and suggest you not use any more than:
==Varieties==
===Latex===
===Polyurethane===
===Labskin===
===Experimental===
With a little work on the section headings/layout and some work on the prose, the article will be in pretty good shape. Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering a nomination for Good Article or Featured Article status. Suggestions for which path is more appropriate for this article are welcome.
I'm specifically looking for suggestions on section ordering, as well as overall article content - are some sections too trivial for an encyclopedia article? Are there aspects of the subject that should be covered in an encyclopedia article that are missing from or undercovered in this one? Suggestions for where the references need improvement (quality or quantity) are also something I'm looking for.
And of course any other improvements that need to be made to make this one of Wikipedia's recognized higher quality articles.
Thanks,
Lyrl Talk C 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A couple quick comments (not a full review). First, I commend the editors working on this article so seriously. I'm assuming this is a high-vandalism article so it takes a lot of patience. Kudos!
First, expand the lead as per WP:LEAD. As far as sections, I think you've done a great job: nothing seems irrelevant (though the "Other uses" section borders on it... but good sourcing overrides any complaint I might have) but maybe reconsidering the organization is a good idea. "History," for example, seems important enough to move up. Then, just a suggestion here, maybe move "Prevalence" into a subsection under it, renamed as "Prevalence today." "Etymology" might become a subsection here too, if you're so inclined. I wonder, too, if the Roman Catholic Church subsection belongs under "Role in sex education" - may there needs to be a "Controversy" or "Debates" section? You could throw the "Disposal" section under there too. Really, all of what I'm saying here is just off the top of my head; I'm assuming you'll put more thought into it and decide if it'll actually work!
I would suggest putting some consideration into the images. I actually think there are too many that don't tie in or at least seem out of place. Make sure the images are complementing the article's text, not just tossed in (the image from Buenos Aries is a good example: the article says nothing about it, so the image seems out of place). Images you don't end up using could be turned into a category on Wikimedia Commons, if there isn't one already. Also, consider moving a couple to the left so it's not so right-heavy.
Also, consider expanding why Somalia bans condoms... and add a source about condoms having negligible impact in landfills.
Anyway, great job here. Keep it up (no pun intended...)! -- Midnightdreary 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
A useful article with plenty of good, encyclopedic images. Agree the article needs some layout/section help. In general, I'd recommend using fewer headings; for this article you could "roll up" smaller sections into a bigger one. I usually don't do more than a ===Level 3=== heading. Under "varieties" use the following, and suggest you not use any more than:
==Varieties==
===Latex===
===Polyurethane===
===Labskin===
===Experimental===
With a little work on the section headings/layout and some work on the prose, the article will be in pretty good shape. Jeff Dahl ( Talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)