Wikipedia:Peer review/Gettysburg Address/archive2
This article has a previous peer review from October 2005. Wikipedia:Peer review/Gettysburg Address/archive1 It has undergone tremendous expansion and sourcing since then and an initial check of WP:FAC was performed (by me). The two main contributing authors at this time are in agreement to solicit further peer input prior to submission as a featured article candidate. Thanks! Kaisershatner 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- The linkage and citation style is horribly messy for such a well-researched article. Notice how when you add an inline external link (e.g. [1] adding a link that way) it throws the entire footnotee/endnote numbering system out of alignment. This is likely the result of multiple and/or inexperienced editors. I recommend converting the inline links to do one of the following: highlight a particular word in the sentence (like this) to prevent them from being numbered and thus interfering with your references; or add them to the references list, which only has the footnoted sources at present. One place where both of these suggestions apply is the penultimate paragraph under "Themes and textual analysis", where you have a link to your source and another to the biblical quote. Your source should be in the references section, possibly with a footnote to it, while the biblical link (if necessary) should be in the form of "Psalm 90". Also, in one place you have three individual footnotes after a sentence, which link to pages 1, 2 and 3 of the same source; this is frankly unnecessary. With a good deal of careful editing, this can be a fine article. --Vedek Dukat Talk 19:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'll go further and say that all links to outside websites should be in the references or external links sections. Inline external links aren't acceptable for a featured article. Also, remember that punctuation is always outside the quotes (e.g. And then he said, "this is a quote", and the people laughed.) And be sure to add non-breaking spaces whenever you use units (I did the first one). That said, this article is really looking good; nice work. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- First of all, thanks for the feedback and changes, and also thanks for the other people who have dropped by to touch up the article since this peer request was posted. (Especially for the huge help with the mechanics of referencing). There seems to be some debate about external link citations in the text, so I'm not sure what to do about that. Also, Spangineer, according to both the WP MOS on punctuation and my own dim recollections about grammar, more than one punctutation style is considered "common usage" but my preference is for the older style, which generally incorporates the punctuation inside the quotation marks. I am flexible on this point, however, especially given your kind contribution, so I hope it's not a big deal. :) Kaisershatner 13:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with the WP:MOS on this one, because I'm used to the American standard of always inserting the punctuation inside the quotes, but according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks, we're supposed to "include the mark of punctuation inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the mark of punctuation is part of the quotation." Honestly, it's not a big deal, but I'm sure that someone eventually will come along and change them all. As for external link citations, if you take a look at some recently featured articles, you'll notice that they put all external link references in the notes section. Some people insist that there be no links in the text, and others don't really care either way, so the links invariably get moved to the notes or references section.--Spangineeres (háblame) 15:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)