Wikipedia:Peer review/King's College London/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to become a GA. It has undergone major changes since the last nominations in 2007-08. I look forward to constructive suggestions and remarks which can help take this article towards a GA.
Thanks very much, Merlaysamuel : Speechify 08:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This nomination for peer review looks premature. There is basic work to be done before it is ready, in particular:
- The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the contents of the article, not a collection of facts. The detailed statistical information should be given in the body of the article, and cited there.
- The History section looks thin and incomplete.
- The article is seriously under-referenced. The "Campus" section has scarely any references, and other sections e.g. History, have many uncited statements
- Nearly all the sources are online. What steps have been taken to research literature (books, articles etc) that might deal objectively with aspects of the College?
- In addition, the article appears to be overdependent on sources belonging to Kings College itself.
- Reference formatting requires standardising, and there is at least one dead link
- The prose does not look well organised, with rather too many single-sentence paragraphs.
I think you need to study one of the "College" articles that has made it to GA, and see if you can work up this one to that standard. I reommend Jesus College, Oxford. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions Brianboulton. I will take them one by one and work on it. Many thanks.--Merlaysamuel : Speechify 10:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)