Wikipedia:Peer review/Null (SQL)/archive1

Null (SQL)

Seeking feedback on all aspects of the Null (SQL) article: content, style, layout, NPOV, citations, etc. Everything that makes a good article good. Thanks.SqlPac 19:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I've just read through the suggestions, and I'll start making the applicable changes asap. Thanks! SqlPac 00:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are very welcome, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 01:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, the WP:LEAD section should summarize the article. What you have in the lead is more of a theoretical definition of NULL. I would organize it so that the first true section is called "Logical meaning of NULL" or something, and contains most of what's in the lead currently, and a new lead section summarizes the article. (I've also been improving the text in places, where appropriate.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I also added a "common mistakes" section. Is this useful?) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more note: the "see also" section contains articles which are already linked in the text. "See also" sections should only contain useful articles which cannot easily be explicitly mentioned in the body. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Quadell, appreciate the feedback. We're constantly working on it, and we'll address these issues you bring up. One thing - the "common mistakes" section appears to be an expansion of the "Empty Strings and Zero" section already in place. I would recommend combining these two sections into one larger section. Thanks. SqlPac 21:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got rid of the articles in the "See also" section that are already linked in the article (most of them). I think I got them all, will double-check later. Thanks! SqlPac 05:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]