After including, quite literally, all information compiled in a single place about this author (in print or on the Internet), getting her personal approval in its content, and scouring every reference I could find, I think it's time for a peer review. It's currently rated at a B class (by me, you know...) and would like to know if it could be rated higher. -- Moni3 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
First of all, well done. You've obviously put in a lot of work, and I really enjoyed reading it. Here are some things I noticed:
OK, that's all I can see for now, hope some of it helps. I'm no expert on copyediting, so maybe someone else can run a copyeditor's eye over it.
-- Beloved Freak 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
First, let me say that this is a very well written article. It reads quite nicely and has a genuine cohesiveness to it that is missing from much of Wikipedia. Kudos!
Now for the areas of improvement:
There are a great many quotes from Ms. Bannon herself. While they add a great deal to the readers understanding of the subject, they may also be seen as supporting the assertions in the article, which could be a violation of WP:Verifiability. Additionally, fourteen of the references are either interviews with the subject, or writings by the subject herself, once again calling WP:V into question. My genuine fear is that, when reviewed by a wider audience, a number of statements may be removed.
One fact that stuck out to me as not being well supported is the final sentence of the opening paragraph:
"Her books are often taught in women's studies and LGBT studies courses." This is later supported with a reference from an interview with the article's subject. She cannot serve as a reference for this item. A citation from a some university actually using one of her books would qualify the statement "Her books have been...", but several citations are needed to support a claim of "often".
I've run short of time and may add more later. Hope this helps! Have a Wiki day!
After including, quite literally, all information compiled in a single place about this author (in print or on the Internet), getting her personal approval in its content, and scouring every reference I could find, I think it's time for a peer review. It's currently rated at a B class (by me, you know...) and would like to know if it could be rated higher. -- Moni3 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
First of all, well done. You've obviously put in a lot of work, and I really enjoyed reading it. Here are some things I noticed:
OK, that's all I can see for now, hope some of it helps. I'm no expert on copyediting, so maybe someone else can run a copyeditor's eye over it.
-- Beloved Freak 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
First, let me say that this is a very well written article. It reads quite nicely and has a genuine cohesiveness to it that is missing from much of Wikipedia. Kudos!
Now for the areas of improvement:
There are a great many quotes from Ms. Bannon herself. While they add a great deal to the readers understanding of the subject, they may also be seen as supporting the assertions in the article, which could be a violation of WP:Verifiability. Additionally, fourteen of the references are either interviews with the subject, or writings by the subject herself, once again calling WP:V into question. My genuine fear is that, when reviewed by a wider audience, a number of statements may be removed.
One fact that stuck out to me as not being well supported is the final sentence of the opening paragraph:
"Her books are often taught in women's studies and LGBT studies courses." This is later supported with a reference from an interview with the article's subject. She cannot serve as a reference for this item. A citation from a some university actually using one of her books would qualify the statement "Her books have been...", but several citations are needed to support a claim of "often".
I've run short of time and may add more later. Hope this helps! Have a Wiki day!