Wikipedia:Peer review/C. Rajagopalachari/archive1

C. Rajagopalachari

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

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 March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I had expanded the article a great deal. The article has been rated B but I feel it has vast potential. Would like to know ways to improve this article further. Thanks, The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on lead: The lead seems really really long. Ideally it should be concise and to the point, i.e. a quick overview of the topic, and it should not introduce new information. Three to four modest paragraphs is plenty. I haven't read the whole article so don't know how much new information is in the lead, but it would be best to put everything new in the appropriate sections and then write a new lead by picking key highlights from the article. The second paragraph is simply too long. Stylistically 'affectionately' in the first sentence seems out of place - not very 'encyclopedic' in tone.

Criticism section. This section has virtually no supporting references. Can this be better documented or does it just depend on one or two paragraphs in a book?

Other section headings. Some of these have too many function words. I will cruise through and tighten them up.

Hope this is of use. Jomeara421 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Not a review. Just a couple of quick observations.

Citations

Many paragraphs in the article include no sourcing information. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation.

References

I don't believe you need to include both ISBNs for each book. WP:ISBN says, "Please use the 13-digit one if available". It also says, "Use dashes if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of dashes varies between books."
Some of the citations such as #27 are incomplete or ill-formed and should be fixed.
Date ranges use en dashes rather than hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments
This is an interesting article. The subject is evidently important in Indian politics (something I don't know much about), and deserves a good presentation.

(i)This article is very chronological, presenting a tour of Rajagopalachari's career, one fact after the other, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph. There is very little context provided, so that someone not familiar with Indian politics in the twentieth century is faced with a blur of names and dates. Flesh out some of the narrative with small amounts of background prose to help the general reader.

(ii) The article has a lot of sections. It might help to for example group some as subsections under a level 2 heading, e.g. one level-2 heading 'Pre-Independence' that would have the current 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sections under it; and then a second level -2 heading 'Independence' (or the like) with the current sections 5-8 under it. This might help the article seem less like a random collection of paragraphs. Doing this might also help to see if there are parts of the article that can be split out into separate sub-articles. I don't know what the best organization is, but some thinking on this will make it better.

(iii) There are many long paragraphs. To improve readability, these should be broken up into shorter chunks.

(iv) Many paragraphs and sections have spotty or no supporting citations. Improving citations throughout will greatly improve the article.

(v) The second paragraph of the lead appears to summarize Rajagopalachari's entire career. It is too long for the lead. Perhaps it could be made into a section called "Career Summary". It seems out of place either way, but making it into a section gives it a place.

(vi) The subject of the article is variously called " Rajagopalachari" or "Rajaji" throughout. It should be one or the other. I assume the latter is more informal, so since this is an encyclopedia article then " Rajagopalachari" should be used.

(vii) I will take a whack at copyediting, and post notes on items that need clarification.

(viii) As I noted above the lead needs to be reworked – a small number of concise summary paragraphs, to the point, no new facts, etc.

Thanks, hope this is of use. John Jomeara421 (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion I've gone through each section of the article. I have done copyediting as well as leaving Talk Page comments on each section re to-dos so that editors can take note and then take action as they see fit - or not. Ideally, a copyeditor not invested in the content will take another run through the entire article. It is not entirely neutral, and is still has a somewhat reverential tone, so not entirely NPOV in my opinion. A lot of work also needs to be done to improve citations (lacking in many places). This article has been rated 'B' but I think that is pretty generous.

I hope this is of use. Thanks. Jomeara421 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]