Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion.
Eisfbnore (
talk ·
contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at
WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ۞ Tbhotch ™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments by Tbhotch
Thank you very much, I will get right on addressing the above comments, and note it here. :) -- Cirt ( talk) 11:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Resolved points from toolbox peer review suggestions. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Notes on toolbox peer review suggestions
-- Cirt ( talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,
I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion.
Eisfbnore (
talk ·
contribs) suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at
WP:Featured list candidates — but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ۞ Tbhotch ™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 00:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments by Tbhotch
Thank you very much, I will get right on addressing the above comments, and note it here. :) -- Cirt ( talk) 11:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions, -- Cirt ( talk) 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Resolved points from toolbox peer review suggestions. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Notes on toolbox peer review suggestions
-- Cirt ( talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,
I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)