Wikipedia:Peer review/Content inventory/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback from community members familiar with the topic; and I'd like to see this article on a path GA and then FA.
Thanks, Cirrus Editor (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article too - since I recently reviewed Website governance, I see that this has some of the same issues - for example, both are quite short, so there is not a lot to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to eventually taking this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC.
- Biggest issue I see is a lack of references. In the Description section (which is most of the article), there are no refs that I could see after the first three paragraphs. Similarly the first paragraph in Value has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. \
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase so fix things like A content inventory typically includes all information assets on a website, such as web pages (html), meta elements (e.g., keywords, description, page title), images, audio and video files, and document files (e.g., .pdf, .doc, .ppt)[5][6][7][8][9][10].
- Also, why does such a fairly straightforward sentence need six references?
- Make sure that all refs used are relaible sources (RS) - for example blogs very seldom meet the RS criteria, so is this a relibale source? Do they list sources they use or have a reputation for fact checking?
- Internet refs 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
- If a ref is repeated, the "ref name =" trick can be used (so current refs 3 and 9 by Scott Baldwin seem to be the same and could be combined). Please ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this.
- The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and should be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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 - this can also be a good way to expand the lead.
- The prose here is farily choppy - there are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt the flow of the article. In most cases, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Bullet point lists are also usually better as prose - some of the current list is very repetitive too Date page last updated — Date of last page update is almost an insult to the reader's intelligence ;-)
- The article is quite short and I think it needs to be expanded. Broad coverage is a GA Criterion and comprehensivenes is a FA criterion.
- See also section does not follow [[[WP:See also]] (as See also sections generally do not link to articles already linked in this article)
- Some very basic terms are linked, like "website" and do not need to be - please see WP:OVERLINK
- Quantitative analysis is a disambiguation link and needs to be fixed.
- Any chance for an image of some sort?
- Should the article be called "Content inventory and audit" perhaps?
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 ><>°° 04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)