Wikipedia:Peer review/Brian Fitzgerald (academic)/archive1

Brian Fitzgerald (academic)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I was on Wikipedia:Random page patrol this artical came up. It was Orphaned, wasn't sure what "Orphan Article" was, after reading about orphan's I decided to see what I could do. I feel I've Improved it enough to De-Orphan the article (hence the removal of the tag). I added the "see also" section, links to related subjects, looked up ISBN # for the book section and also noticed his sister was mentioned in most of the book searches, so I felt she deserved mention, she a Dr. of "something". I also tag the article "Please help improve this article by expanding it". Thanks, Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I appreciate that you are trying to develop this article, but that process seems at the moment hardly to have begun; the article has only 300 words and is little more than a list of facts about Brian Fitzgerald, with none of the structure or general information one associates with a biographical article. Peer review is intended as a process for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." (see WP:Peer Review introductory paragraphs. It is completely inappropriate for this article's present embryonic form. Should be withdrawn and brought back when and if more work has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not the author of this article, I don't even know who Brian Fitzgerald is, I was using the "Random Article" link and this one poped up, believing the purpose of the of the random article patrol is to see if you can contribute, add appropriate referecnes, useful internal links, improve continuity, etc. just any constructive input to improve, enhance what ever article may pop up, by NO means was I even thinking of GA , FA all I was doing "contributing". All I can say is that, when I clicked "Random article" and this article poped up it was taged as an Orphan Article, I filled the requirements to remove the orphan tag, let me see, what did I do Here's the Diff's I think. Where do us below standard editors post a couple of sentences find out how bad we're doing ? I know not to ever post anything I work on at same place I did this one, that lesson I've learned. Sorry to clog up those important pages with my trivial request, sorry to bother you, and always thanks for your "bedside manners"Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you are looking for feedback on how you are doing or what else to improve, this is a good start and what is here is interesting, but the article needs a lot more work to get to GA, let along FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FA as the ultimate goal (even if you do not want to take it there).

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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - but the books section is not mentioned in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
The article needs many more references - there are only three inline citations in the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
The direct external links in the article need to be converted to inline citations and as Internet refs will also 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 the WP:MOS, once he is named in the lead, the subject should just be called "Fitzgerald" not Brian Fitzgerald or Professor Fitzgerald
One of the FAC requirements is that an article be comprehensive "1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" this is so short right now that it seems very doubtful that it meet this criterion. When was he born? What about his family? Is he married or does he have children? When did he attend university?
Another FAC crtierion is 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; - there are only three references in the article now.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many example FAs at Category:FA-Class biography articles

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct any further comments to the author of this article. I've had about as much as i care to read thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to archive this PR as it's clear the nominator is no longer interested; plus, it's been nearly two weeks without any activity. María (habla conmigo) 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]