Wikipedia:Peer review/Windows Media Audio/archive1
I'd like to know what else needs to be done for this article to gain a higher rating than say B. It's got essentially everything covered, at least comparable to other codec articles like DTS. I've made some large edits lately, adding references, consistent writing style and all that. Please let us know what you think. Many thanks!
- The lead summary: you need to split it up, or add to it, because at the moment it looks really chunky.
- Sound quality: "Some conclusions made by recent studies". Source it, please.
- References, change
{{reflist}}to{{reflist|2}}, and properly cite all references using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}, etc.
Hope these comments have helped, –sebi 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up sebi! I'll get myself and others to work on them. Regarding the sound quality section, there are source links for each quality level. Do you mean I should reference them in a different way? Thanks!
- Yes, there are sources provided, but they aren't in the correct format. If the stuff in the sound quality was referenced from all different sources, and put together by you or some other editor, that's original research. Yes, they should be referenced in a different way. See citing sources for more information on ref syntax, etc. –sebi 10:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the reply! When you say "put together", do you mean as in the interpretation that is given in each quality level? (ie. At 64kbps, WMA was better than...), etc?
- In that case, do you think "At 64kbps, source claimed that WMA was better than...) would comply with NOR? Thanks
- Ugh, did you compile the list of the different kbp levels with the sources yourself? Because if you did, that is original research. I have no problem with the list of different levels, however, the fact that you put them together yourself and said "Some conclusions made by recent studies", is original research, and isn't acceptable for a Wikipedia article. If you didn't compile the list, you need to track down the person who did compile the list, and cite it. –sebi 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are sources provided, but they aren't in the correct format. If the stuff in the sound quality was referenced from all different sources, and put together by you or some other editor, that's original research. Yes, they should be referenced in a different way. See citing sources for more information on ref syntax, etc. –sebi 10:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up sebi! I'll get myself and others to work on them. Regarding the sound quality section, there are source links for each quality level. Do you mean I should reference them in a different way? Thanks!
Automated Peer Review
[edit]The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
- Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)