Wikipedia:Peer review/Asset-based egalitarianism/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently expanded the page and need some direction on house style and where to go next. Hopefully the article will be expanded a lot further subsequent to review.
Many Thanks, Markz17 (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: The aritcle is quite short, so some more contenct and work is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- I removed the Philosopher infobox and left the picture of Thomas Paine in the article. For help on adding images to articles see WP:Images
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
- As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- The article needs more references - Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
- Article needs more references, for example the last two sentences of Historical development are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Give ISBN for books in the reference, not in the text.
- Internet refs should be refs and not bare external links. These internet refs would need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Per WP:MOS#Quotes, block quotations should be at least four lines.
- Per WP:HEAD, the section headers should not repeat the title of the article. So Criticism of asset-based egalitarianism should just be Criticism
- The WP:MOS also says that the "See also" section if for links to articles that were not linked in the article itself. Several of these should then be removed
- Article needs a copyedit. Be sure to avoid jargon - see WP:JARGON
- Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)