Wikipedia:Peer review/Meaning of life/archive1

Meaning of life

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

This article was nominated for deletion in November 2006, AfD nominated version, and has since gone through some major restructuring and addition of a lot of content. I see this article as being a large signpost, giving readers a quick sense of a particular views outlook on life, and letting the reader explore other related subjects.

However, the article has grown quite long (110kb, right now) and some views are given a disproportionate amount of space. Meaning of life#Popular views of the purpose of life and Meaning of life#Humorous, aesthetic and entertainment media treatments add a considerable amount of length to this article, but they also add by presenting a broad plurality of views.

I am looking for was to improve the presentation of existing views, but also other major/important views that should be included. If possible, I would also like to reduce the length of this article (split?), and other general improvements.

Thanks, Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the article and would like to give my feedback:

1)It is extremely well written. I do not think the length is a problem at all, because each section has been written in summary style and link to corresponding longer articles if someone wants more information.

2)The only section I found that needs work is the Christian view section. It quotes a lot of Scripture, but no other sources. This gives the appearance of original research. The Scripture references may be an accurate portrayal of the Christian view, but another source should be used.

3) The only sections I think should be removed or possibly edited is the Humorous and Popular Culture sections near the end. The Humorous section seems muddled and confusing, and I think the images take up too much space. The pop culture section seems more like trivia and thus a bit (but not completely) irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I hope that helps. Good job at summarizing an extremely vast subject in such a concise article! Kristamaranatha (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]