Wikipedia:Peer review/Universal pragmatics/archive1
To get non-philosophers to read and comment on the intelligibility of the article, and make creative improvements. Lucidish 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- After a brief glance I can see a few problems. First I noticed some jargon that wasn't linked so that users could look it up (eg. "program" in the first sentence"). I think the referencing leaves a little to be desired: you can still use Harvard but do this within the cite templates. Finally, there are no pictures or diagrams. --Oldak Quill 11:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with Oldak. In addition, Wikipedia:Manual of style should be payed more attention to: section titles are rather too long, citations should be renamed references, there is a red category, bolded text should be unbolded, references need ISBN/ISNN, and from the middle of the article there are entire sections with almost no ilinks (1 or 2).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)