Wikipedia:Peer review/Bong/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Bong
I would like to see this become a featured article. Even considering the subject matter I believe the article meets all of the Wikipedia standards and has some really good prose. Triddle 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did some spelling cleanup. Also there is a word in the article that is sometimes spelled "spotty" and sometimes "spottie." From what I saw, there's no explanation for the duplicate spellings, and since I know nothing about bongs, I'm just letting you know.--Esprit15d 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help on the copy edit and I'll fix the multiple spellings of the same word. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- More references, and get in-line citations if you can. Also try not to mix external links and references together. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question: What would you like to see cited? I've had a hard time figuring out exactly what should be cited. As it stands now the definition of a bong is cited, and the claim that bong water filters out more THC than anything else (which is counter intuitive and contrary to popular belief) is cited too. Other than that the article does not claim anything extraordinary. Can you elaborate a little please? I'm willing to dig up the citations I just don't know what should be cited. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- A generally successful method is to run through the article as if from someone that doesn't believe the material. What could they object to? Overall, prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of what are the most important, central, and/or contentious claims. Cite those, and then cite any specific facts in any tables and quotes or whatever. Aim for 20 or so citations to high quality sources. The subject in question may be hard to get good sources for, but see what you can do. - Taxman Talk 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I'll do some digging. Triddle 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- A generally successful method is to run through the article as if from someone that doesn't believe the material. What could they object to? Overall, prioritize the facts in the article from the standpoint of what are the most important, central, and/or contentious claims. Cite those, and then cite any specific facts in any tables and quotes or whatever. Aim for 20 or so citations to high quality sources. The subject in question may be hard to get good sources for, but see what you can do. - Taxman Talk 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Question: What would you like to see cited? I've had a hard time figuring out exactly what should be cited. As it stands now the definition of a bong is cited, and the claim that bong water filters out more THC than anything else (which is counter intuitive and contrary to popular belief) is cited too. Other than that the article does not claim anything extraordinary. Can you elaborate a little please? I'm willing to dig up the citations I just don't know what should be cited. Triddle 19:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- The article could use a history section. I already did a little digging on this and did not have very positive results. Perhaps someone else can suggest where I might find some bong history resources? Triddle 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not bad, I'd change the cleaning section to make it sound less like an instruction manual, though. And perhaps something to relate bongs to other types of pipes and water pipes. --BadSeed 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed - thanks for the comments. I'll try to integrate a history section and your comparison ideas together into a short first section of the article. Triddle 17:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
