This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to aim for A class status. The article has already passed the GA class. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks, Zithan ( talk) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments:
WP:JARGON says: "...most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typcal academic paper".
The problem with this article is that is generally written in exclusive language, and reads more like a business seminar paper, or the notes for a lecture to marketing people, than it does like a general encyclopedia article. It does not have the level of explanation suggested above, and is consequently hard to understand except for those who are well versed in the subject. An early example of what I refer to as exclusive language occurs in the lead:-
"It involves the creation a metrics framework to monitor marketing performance, and then develop and utilize marketing dashboards to manage marketing performance."
Metrics framework? Marketing dashboards? Without a knowledge of what these are, the sentence is meaningless. I have gone through the first main section (Data and analytics), and listed the problems that I find with it. These problems may be taken as typical for the article as a whole.
Similar sorts of criticisms could be made of later sections. I think the general task is to work through the prose and try and simplify it, with fewer "professional" words and more explanation. As it stands it might do fine in a professional journal, but it needs a different sort of presentation here. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram Along the same lines:
Hope these few further remarks help. doncram ( talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to aim for A class status. The article has already passed the GA class. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thanks, Zithan ( talk) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments:
WP:JARGON says: "...most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typcal academic paper".
The problem with this article is that is generally written in exclusive language, and reads more like a business seminar paper, or the notes for a lecture to marketing people, than it does like a general encyclopedia article. It does not have the level of explanation suggested above, and is consequently hard to understand except for those who are well versed in the subject. An early example of what I refer to as exclusive language occurs in the lead:-
"It involves the creation a metrics framework to monitor marketing performance, and then develop and utilize marketing dashboards to manage marketing performance."
Metrics framework? Marketing dashboards? Without a knowledge of what these are, the sentence is meaningless. I have gone through the first main section (Data and analytics), and listed the problems that I find with it. These problems may be taken as typical for the article as a whole.
Similar sorts of criticisms could be made of later sections. I think the general task is to work through the prose and try and simplify it, with fewer "professional" words and more explanation. As it stands it might do fine in a professional journal, but it needs a different sort of presentation here. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Doncram Along the same lines:
Hope these few further remarks help. doncram ( talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)