Wikipedia:Peer review/Irredentism/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently made various changes to it and I wanted to get some feedback to prepare it for a GAN. Thanks, Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]This article looks very well researched and contains great information. I think this is ready for GAN, and could continue to FAC with some improvements. I would try to remove and replace Encyclopedia Britannia as a source as much as possible, as its reliability is disputed per WP:BRITANNICA, and the article relies on that source a lot. If you are thinking of going to FAC, I would try to incorporate the "Further Reading" sources as inline citations. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Thanks for the helpful comments. One questions concerning the Encyclopedia Britannia for FAC: is this also considered a problem if the author is a well-known expert in the field? I'm asking specifically about the article "Irredentism" by Thomas Ambrosio. Some of the other Britannica articles just list "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica" as authors and I would focus mainly on replacing them with better sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- It should be fine to use this source in the article, but editors might be concerned with the amount of times it is used and it being E. Britannica might cause further concerns. If there is a secondary source that gives similar information, it is better to replace the EB ref for that one. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, searching for the author's name in databases might yield some of their work that would be considered secondary sources, which might be good replacements for EB. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- For most claims, it is not the only source cited and could be removed. I'll see if I can cut down on its citations and look for secondary sources for the cases where it is the only source. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- In addition, searching for the author's name in databases might yield some of their work that would be considered secondary sources, which might be good replacements for EB. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- It should be fine to use this source in the article, but editors might be concerned with the amount of times it is used and it being E. Britannica might cause further concerns. If there is a secondary source that gives similar information, it is better to replace the EB ref for that one. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)