Wikipedia:Peer review/Susan Gerbic/archive1

Susan Gerbic

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… I want some feedback before I offer it for GA.

Thanks, Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

Typically the lead should be at least two paragraphs for GA. Also I think the information about where she was born, and possibly her education also, should be placed after the first sentence rather than at the end of the lead.
The lead should summarise information in the article, though information about her parents and when/where she was born is not mentioned outside of the lead (where she "grew up" is mentioned, but that's not the same). Information about her portrait studio and BA is also not mentioned outside the lead. I very much dislike the first section title 'Skepticism'; the article should open with a section title/informaiton along the lines of 'Early life'. Gerber was born in 1962 but by the fifth sentence of the article we're up to the year 2000?
Quote "It was very powerful when I started making edits." - You should give a time for this quote; what year was it made, and maybe also add where it was made.
Avoid contractions such as "aren't" as per MOS:N'T
Every paragraph should have at least one reference. The paragraph beginning with "Gerbic found it odd what friends said about her diagnosis" has none. The last sentence in the preceding paragraph ("I have breast cancer") should also have an inline citation
I think the sub-section on hats is, frankly, a bit silly. At best this should be merged with the cancer section. It doesn't need it's own sub-section.
Reconsider some uses the word "claim" as per WP:WORDS.

Hope this helps. Freikorp (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm going to start looking at this and see what I can improve. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

I concur with the above reviewer that the WP:LEAD is a bit short. Please make sure that a summary of each section is included in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure that all content in the LEAD is a summary of content in the main article. E.g., her parents information should not be in the LEAD if it is not in the main body in at least as much detail.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be chronological unless there is a good reason for it not to be. The main body should begin with her early life (where she was born and raised, her parents and siblings, any notable ancestors). Work in the early life stuff that currently serves as the intro. It should then give us her early training like where she went to school. This should all be WP:V by WP:RS using WP:IC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the point of the "Monterey County Skeptics" subsection is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why "would manipulate" rather than manipulated?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are "fictionally deceased persons"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is "world of woo" a typo?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]