Wikipedia:Peer review/Stanley Donen/archive3
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see what may need to be done for it to qualify as a Featured Article.
Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Loeba comments
I'll try and review this one for you. I won't start immediately, but hopefully in the coming days. A lot of good work has clearly been done here, but my first impression is that it does look a bit on the long side - for instance we get almost 700 words on Singin' in the Rain alone. I find it hard to believe the "Relationship with Gene Kelly" section needs to be so long as well. Perhaps you could look at where the detail could be trimmed/condensed? I'm also not keen on the referencing style, and far prefer the method used when the article passed GA...the way it is currently gave me a minor freakout - it looked like there were dozens of references made to entire books, without page numbers! Perhaps this is just a matter of personal taste, but it's not a referencing style I've seen much on WP, and I'm sure that's because it's quite awkward (having the page numbers embedded within the text makes it harder to read). Something to think about. Anyway yes, I will begin reading through the article soon. --Loeba (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Add: I'm just noticed that the nominator hasn't been active in 2 weeks. @Deoliveirafan:, could you please make a reply here so that I know you will respond to the review. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes I'm checking in. At some point a different editor changed all of the citations so that the one from books have the page numbers embedded into the body of the article. This occured after the article was promoted to GA status. I don't like it either. I'll read over the article again and see where it can be trimmed down and summarized more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, I don't think many substantial changes have been made since the GA promotion so you could take the version before the references were changed, copy and paste the entire thing and then use a dif of the current article to add in any worthwhile changes made since (which as I said all seem pretty small)? That would probably be the quickest way to go about it (and I do think it's be worth doing). I'll begin reviewing in a few days - if you're planning on trimming back material, then it would be best if you could do it before I start? --Loeba (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Deoliveirafan: Any thoughts on my last statement? I just don't want to spend time reading through and commenting on material that may end up being cut... --Loeba (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, I don't think many substantial changes have been made since the GA promotion so you could take the version before the references were changed, copy and paste the entire thing and then use a dif of the current article to add in any worthwhile changes made since (which as I said all seem pretty small)? That would probably be the quickest way to go about it (and I do think it's be worth doing). I'll begin reviewing in a few days - if you're planning on trimming back material, then it would be best if you could do it before I start? --Loeba (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes I'm checking in. At some point a different editor changed all of the citations so that the one from books have the page numbers embedded into the body of the article. This occured after the article was promoted to GA status. I don't like it either. I'll read over the article again and see where it can be trimmed down and summarized more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)