Wikipedia:Peer review/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/archive1

Elizabeth II

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how we can improve it and potentially get it up to featured article standards. All constructive criticism is greatly appreciated

Thanks,

Brendan44 12:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by karanacs

It looks like you've done a lot of work so far, but I think you still have a lot to do before going for FA. The most glaring problem with the article is its lack of citations. Every single quotation must be cited, and most facts should also be cited from a reputable source. Furthermore, the prose needs work. Some of it does not send formal enough, and in other cases it is choppy or does not flow well. I haven't gone too far into the details, but here are some examples of the problems I saw.

Do not include Further information or see also in the Lead. It should be a summary of what is in the article and not be sending people elsewhere
Needs major copyediting. The prose is very choppy, and in many cases could flow better between paragraphs.
You don't need to refer to her sister as "the late" Princess Margaret.
Watch your pronouns. I saw several cases where you would be talking about the Queen, then talk about another woman (her mother, her governess, etc), and then the next sentence would refer to "she." You'll need to change those so that we know who "she" is.
All quotations, no matter how well known, need citations
A lot of the article is without citations. This needs to fixed before trying fo FA.
personal surname does not need to be italicized
There are too many instances of information being given in parentheses. Try to work osme of that information into the main text, or remove it if possible
Much of the information about her 2007 US visit appears to be trivia. Ask yourself if each sentence will be notable in 10 or 20 years; if so, leave it in; if not, remove it
The Reduced Duties section needs a lot of work. It does nt flow well, repeats information from elswhere in the article, and appears to contradict itself at least once. It also includes a lot of speculative trivia
For Personality and image, you should summarize what is in the main article. There should not be an empty section.

Good luck! Karanacs 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by J Milburn

Some footnotes are a little messy-

This is just personal preferences, I guess, so take it with a pinch of salt, but I prefer to use a separate set of footnotes for extra information (footnotes 1 and 3, for instance) such as by using the ref label and note label templates.
Ref 14 and 15 are broken- I think it's because of those dashes someone has stuck in the template.
The references would look much better if they were all put in citation templates, rather than just being external links.

Now, some non-reference issues-

Would be good to cull some external links, if just to remove that nasty template message.
"Official Buckingham Palace sources, however, have always denied there were conflicts between the Queen and Thatcher." Could definitely use a reference.
Everything tagged with {{fact}} will need a reference.
So you are aware, Image:Postcard Queen Elizabeth Charles Anne.jpg is tagged for deletion.
"If she survives until 21 December 2007, attaining the age of 81 years and 244 days, she will become the longest-lived monarch in British history." and "If both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are still alive on 20 November 2007, the Queen will become the first monarch to celebrate a Diamond wedding anniversary." could both do with references.
In fact, the referencing all around is a little light. For instance, there are whole sections (Styles, Arms, Scottish controversy... Unreferenced controversies are not a good thing)
As already mentioned, the empty sections look bad.
Short paragraphs often look pretty poor- see Finances, Scottish controversy, Styles and others.

Happy to analyse further, drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]