This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has seen very considerably good improvements within the last month since it was selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling Collaboration of the Month. Previously, it had some problems with NPOV in the last peer review. Also the article was previously too focused on the United States. I think both of these problems have been fixed, and I plan on nominating it as a good article very soon. -
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Given the backlog at WP:GAN, you are probably OK nominating it there now. I will try to review this later today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While a lot of work has gone into this, it needs a lot more work to get to GA status. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I switched from bullets to numbers as requested - I am fine with replies between by points if that is what you like. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments. The main difficulty that this article has is that it feels as though it bears underlying webs of POV, which can be seen in the John Holt section, and accentuated by need of citations. Much of this can be cleaned up just by changing the wording in areas. The stilted delivery of the introduction paragraph needs some work to help with flow, and the International status section needs sources as well. The countries listed have so little written about them that it seems as though they are a list. While some of this could be left alone for now, the POV issues and 'essay' feel are what really need to be worked on. In my opinion, it's still a start-class article, though B-class isn't too far away for it. Fusion Mix 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has seen very considerably good improvements within the last month since it was selected as the WikiProject Homeschooling Collaboration of the Month. Previously, it had some problems with NPOV in the last peer review. Also the article was previously too focused on the United States. I think both of these problems have been fixed, and I plan on nominating it as a good article very soon. -
Diligent
Terrier
(and friends) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Given the backlog at WP:GAN, you are probably OK nominating it there now. I will try to review this later today. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
While a lot of work has gone into this, it needs a lot more work to get to GA status. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I switched from bullets to numbers as requested - I am fine with replies between by points if that is what you like. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments. The main difficulty that this article has is that it feels as though it bears underlying webs of POV, which can be seen in the John Holt section, and accentuated by need of citations. Much of this can be cleaned up just by changing the wording in areas. The stilted delivery of the introduction paragraph needs some work to help with flow, and the International status section needs sources as well. The countries listed have so little written about them that it seems as though they are a list. While some of this could be left alone for now, the POV issues and 'essay' feel are what really need to be worked on. In my opinion, it's still a start-class article, though B-class isn't too far away for it. Fusion Mix 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)