Wikipedia:Peer review/Mousepad/archive1
I've been having some minor conflict with an anon user who's introducing some of what I consider overlinking/redundancy/stylistic problems into the article. (Take a look at the history to see the full extent of the situation.) I'm not sure how to make 69.108.115.193's edits into better ones, but I don't want to discourage someone from editing; I think a peer review would be helpful so that somebody uninvolved in this conflict can step in and take a look at actual content. I don't think I need mediation or anything, but a fresh eye would be appreciated. Switchercat talkcont 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, this article still isn't the best, but I figured it'd get more response here than on the talk page. Switchercat talkcont 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article needs to be referenced throughout.
It's unclear in places, such as: The invention of the mouse pre-existed the invention of the mousepad by about seventeen years - does that mean the mousepad was invented 17 years after the mouse? ...and published in 1979 - what (was) published in 1979?
Some of the sentences don't show encyclopaedic quality: The Corepad Deskpad XXXL, possibly the largest pad on the market, is a massive 90cm x 45cm. - the use of possibly doesn't inspire the reader to have confidence in the rest of the article. The use of "massive" is unnecessary (and I suppose slightly point-of-view).
The lists within the text are inelegant, not especially useful and incomplete so cut them down to the main ones (I'm looking at the ones of manufacturers and possible materials).
I think you've dealt with anon correctly so far, and should continue trying to talk to him, but also clean-up or revert his edits as necessary to keep the article decent. Trebor 20:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)