Wikipedia:Peer review/Micro Mart/archive1

Micro Mart

I have recently been rewriting this and many othe UK PC mag articles - as well as the list of PC magazines and have created the PC Magazines template. I am basically trying to improve them to a levle where thay can be featured content.

Basically this article is still very much in development and has much more content to be added, plus of course wiki links need adding to this new version. In this context the article is very incomplete.

What I am looking for is guidance and ideas on the format and layout of the article. Unfortunately many magazine articles on wikipedia are not very good and there isn't much in the way of a general layout. Which is a shame. So any ideas of how I can lay this article out / improve / add to it will be much much appreciated

Let the flaming commence :D -- Errant^talk(formerly tmorton166) 21:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

There is currently no lead section - the article launches straight into what would usually be included in the main body of the article.
Avoid opinion based statements, such as "unfortunately a lack of response has made this section very intermittent", as this expresses a particular point of view.
The article currently lacks references or citations, other than forum postings, which are not generally viewed as reliable sources. Existing references should be converted to use the m:Cite format. It is not necessary to include Dennis Publishing's website inline - the wikilink to Dennis Publishing Ltd. is sufficient.
The article is biased towards the present - Micro Mart was very different 5 or 6 years ago, never mind 15 or 20 years ago. IIRC it was very much an Auto Trader type publication. The development of the magazine format - and the way that it was (and still is) bought for its advertising content by many people - should be covered in more depth.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 19:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for that, I agree about needing more on the past of MM, I am currently trying to get the current editor to provide any info he may have access to plus I am trying to pick the brains of older users on the forum.

As to the other things, thanks I have noted them down as I rewrite :D I forgot all about the lead and stuff so it will be useful. Thanks for pointing out the NPOV as well, it's always hard when your writing (I find) to write impartially and even harder to spot the POV bits afterwards. I will take a good look through and see what I can change.

Thanks for the input :D -- Errant^talk(formerly tmorton166) 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful not to step into the realms of original research, particularly if you are getting information from other people. Good luck with your search for more information! Oldelpaso 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]