Wikipedia:Peer review/Badminton/archive1

Badminton

I finished renovating this article and hope to nominate it to featured article status. However, I'm not sure if it's good enough to nominate. Please provide any comments. Thank you --Aleen f1 07:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aleen. I have taken the liberty of moving the Badminton item from the Biography section to the Unclassified section. Good luck. Bob BScar23625 09:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article is yet good enough to nominate. A distinct weakness is the list of strokes; I've expanded this and intend to add an accompanying tactical context section, and possibly a section about advanced strokes/skills. Some more thought needs to go into the structure of the article too (what information goes where), and whether the article should be split into separate articles. --Mike Hopley 00:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that some of the article needs to be rewritten for clarity and concision. --Mike Hopley 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the present form it is not good enough to nominate for FA status. There is a lot of good information but it is let down by poor writing and balance. It needs copyediting throughout.

Some quick comments:

Introduction should ideally summarize the whole article, not just the rules
'General description' section is unnecessary - it covers informmation that is covered in more depth in the rest of the article. This should be summarized in the introduction and dropped.
Style could do with some tweaking, there are examples of odd phrasing throughout. A quick selection:

'Badminton champion Fu Haifeng' - either say what he is champion of or leave it out
'Badminton is often compared to tennis' - 'contrasted' would be better here as that is what the rest of the paragraph does (although you have already compared the equipment in the preceding paragraph)
'The traditional scoring system in badminton history involves 15 points' - 'traditional' is fine, no need to add 'history', 'involves' is a strange choice.
'or called "setting".' - what?
'The pair will serve the shuttlecock like singles rules which base to their points' - what?
'Badminton shoes need a gummy soles for good grip' - or a shoe need a gummy sole?

The 'Playing rules' section appears to have been written by a non-native speaker - it needs a copyedit
Units of measurement - sometimes you use metric, sometimes imperial, sometimes both. Standardize on one and then quote the other in brackets after it. You can use the standard abbreviations rather than spelling it out each time, and the manual of style recommends inserting an non-breaking space between values and units
'This system was abandoned later' and 'later also replaced' - surely there are dates for these.
'Badminton racquets, in conjunction with hockey sticks, are also used in the lesser-known “sport” of Bee-Whacking.' looks like subtle vandalism
Strokes - would benefit from some diagrams
Strategy - re-covers some info from the strokes section (i.e. smash is redescribed in the second sentence)
As a personal preference I'd like to see more inline citations.

Hope this helps. Yomangani 01:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]