Wikipedia:Peer review/Alice Ball/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first article on Wikipedia.
Thanks, Matthew Brown 18:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice first article! I only found minor issues, and I corrected them. I have nominated your article for the Did you know section of Wikipedia's Main page. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A few comments:
- For a first article, this shows a remarkable grasp of the rules concerning the form, structure and referencing of a WP article. I imagine that either you spent a long time on one of the "how to..." pages, or that you had an earlier incarnation, perhaps as an IP? Whatever, the article, though short, is pretty good as a first effort.
- I can find only a few things that I would change:
- Perhaps expand the lead by a sentence or to, so that it is summary of the whole article.
- One or two terms are perhaps a little too everyday in nature to warrant wikilinks. I refer particularly to "chemist" and "postgraduate", but you could check for others
- You should be consistent about whether to use numerals or words for values of 10 or more. At themoment you have "10" and "78", but also "ninety"
- Maybe the sources don't say, but do you know why, specifically, February 1929 was nominated as "Alice Ball Day"? There doesn't seem to be any connection between this day and her life and work.
- I think the article is worth a B classification and have changed its ratings. I also consider that "medium importance" rather than "low importance" is appropriate.
If you are intending to work on other articles, give me a shout if you would like me to take a look. PS: in future would you please sign yourself with your username by using the four tildes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)