Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article status. I think that it looks pretty good, but I would like a second opinion as to whether anything should be added, taken away or altered in the article in order for it to pass an FA review.
Thanks, Jith12 ( talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Just some brief comments from me.
More to come (hopefully) but at the moment by main criticism is that the style and tone is not very encyclopedic -- we need to consider how a historian would discuss this team in 50 years, would they write an article in such a style? -- Shudde talk 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to stop there. I don't want to be too discouraging because I know how hard it is to work on an article only to have people criticise it, but I think the article has a bit of work needed before it's ready for FAC. I would try and get an uninvolved editor to copy-edit the article. But before that I would go through and make sure it is well sourced to reliable sources that won't be disputed at FAC (I even see some links that are dead, I would try and link those to archive.org if possible). Once it's well sourced (and also double check for close-paraphrasing) a copy-edit will be worthwhile. There should, for example, be no unsourced paragraphs. Anything that could be disputed should be also sourced. Regarding comprehensiveness, nothing jumps out at me as missing, but I would consider delisting the record section, and expanding on why the team was created in the first place. Sorry not be be more positive, but I don't want to see you go to FAC just to receive the same feedback. Better to know now and have a better experience at FAC than you would otherwise. -- Shudde talk 14:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article status. I think that it looks pretty good, but I would like a second opinion as to whether anything should be added, taken away or altered in the article in order for it to pass an FA review.
Thanks, Jith12 ( talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Just some brief comments from me.
More to come (hopefully) but at the moment by main criticism is that the style and tone is not very encyclopedic -- we need to consider how a historian would discuss this team in 50 years, would they write an article in such a style? -- Shudde talk 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to stop there. I don't want to be too discouraging because I know how hard it is to work on an article only to have people criticise it, but I think the article has a bit of work needed before it's ready for FAC. I would try and get an uninvolved editor to copy-edit the article. But before that I would go through and make sure it is well sourced to reliable sources that won't be disputed at FAC (I even see some links that are dead, I would try and link those to archive.org if possible). Once it's well sourced (and also double check for close-paraphrasing) a copy-edit will be worthwhile. There should, for example, be no unsourced paragraphs. Anything that could be disputed should be also sourced. Regarding comprehensiveness, nothing jumps out at me as missing, but I would consider delisting the record section, and expanding on why the team was created in the first place. Sorry not be be more positive, but I don't want to see you go to FAC just to receive the same feedback. Better to know now and have a better experience at FAC than you would otherwise. -- Shudde talk 14:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)