Wikipedia:Peer review/John Edward/archive1
I think that this article is written to quite a good standard, but was wondering if there is anyway it can be expanded. Some areas may also need clarification, but I am not sure which sections or to what degree. This page is also subject to vandalism due to its slightly controversial nature, and any suggestions on how to minimise that aspect, if it can be minimised, would be appreciated. Allthesestars 09:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article is missing biographical information on Edward. As it stands now, it is an article on the TV show, and not on John Edward. The section "Criticisms" reproduces content from other articles, such as cold reading and hot reading. It is better to just indicate these articles and then focus on criticism directly towards Edward, and not towards psychichs in general. And inline citations should be used. It is not clear what is the source for Schwartz's test; show it in the article itself, preferably through inline citation. Ditto for that alleged documentary on him. The section on the disclaimer should be sourced; it should say who has favored this or that opinion, otherwise those are weasel words. JoaoRicardotalk 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- The article will need some considerable work. Besides agreeing with the above regarding the missing biographical information, the article consists of several small paragraphs which should be expanded, combined, or eliminated. As well, I personally am not a fan of celebrity's having "in the media" sections, as persumably, it's a celebrity's job to appear in the media. However, I do not know if there's an official policy regarding this. As of now, over 2/3 of the article involves criticisms of Edward or media parodies, which might create some NPOV issues since the article appears on first read against him. I hope that helps you, and best of luck with the writing! --Ataricodfish 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)