Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the most important articles in the Wiki and I have been unable to nominate it for FA only because I cannot find the original writers for this article who could iron out the problems that may arise then. A peer review will help in figuring out where the problems lie and to solve them before going for FA; as well as finding other more experienced editors willing to help the article
Thanks, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I guess I'm not yet able to edit the article myself, but I wanted to stop by and mention that I agree there are some organisational issues. Thematic order can work if done right.
My advice to whoever works on the article is to put yourself in the mindset of someone who knows nothing about the subject other than that story about an apple falling on his head or something and go through the article with a fine-toothed comb, stem to stern. The paragraph on Leibniz, for example, becomes a bit confusing when read in this way and probably needs to be rewritten in any case. Its tone ("Such a suggestion, however, fails to notice...") and lack of secondary references are more appropriate for an essay than what I understand a Wikipedia article should be.
My advice to you would be to choose something less daunting if you feel unqualified to do the work yourself. You've only made one edit to the article, and that was to change a date. John Anderton ( talk) 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the most important articles in the Wiki and I have been unable to nominate it for FA only because I cannot find the original writers for this article who could iron out the problems that may arise then. A peer review will help in figuring out where the problems lie and to solve them before going for FA; as well as finding other more experienced editors willing to help the article
Thanks, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I guess I'm not yet able to edit the article myself, but I wanted to stop by and mention that I agree there are some organisational issues. Thematic order can work if done right.
My advice to whoever works on the article is to put yourself in the mindset of someone who knows nothing about the subject other than that story about an apple falling on his head or something and go through the article with a fine-toothed comb, stem to stern. The paragraph on Leibniz, for example, becomes a bit confusing when read in this way and probably needs to be rewritten in any case. Its tone ("Such a suggestion, however, fails to notice...") and lack of secondary references are more appropriate for an essay than what I understand a Wikipedia article should be.
My advice to you would be to choose something less daunting if you feel unqualified to do the work yourself. You've only made one edit to the article, and that was to change a date. John Anderton ( talk) 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)