Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject History | Review

[edit] Peer review

The Peer review process is designed to provide ideas for improvement and expansion of articles within our scope by subjecting them to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors

Once an article is nominated, it will remain on the list untill the nominator feels he/she has gained enough feedback. Old nominations can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review/Peer review archive

[edit] How to request

To nominate an article within our scope for a history peer review simply replace PAGENAME in the box below with the name of the article (Place 2 or a higher number after the name for each consectutive nomination) and click Request. Adjust the page that appears accordingly and transclude the page into the "Current requests" section, below, using {{Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review/PAGENAME}}, replacing pagename accordingly.

Finally, add peer-review=yes to the project banner on the article talk page

[edit] Current requests

[edit] Indigenous people of the Everglades region

I've written this as a satellite to the Everglades article, and I'm interested in bringing it to FA. I appreciate any comments you can give. Thanks. Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Tudor period

I've added some significant events of the period, tried to cleanup the daily life in period section (which I'm doing at present..), made grammar corrections, etc. I'm aware a few of the references are from rather poor so I don't expect anyone would see this as a WP:GA but I'd like some feedback as to if I am going in the right direction!?, cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 22:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Axim (1642)

I have listed this article for peer review because this article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Axim and the Netherlands, dating from 1642. In it diplomatic, political, and economic relations are defined, some of which would last for 230 years.

The article is brief but succinct, with all the necessary information and a link to the full text of the treaty on Wikisource. It is my belief that the article is already at GA-level, or very close to it, and deserves a serious assessment and commentary eventually leading it towards that status. Also, the layout of the article could well serve as a model for other short bilateral treaties in Wikipedia, so also look at it with that in mind.

Michel Doortmont (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Butre (1656)

This article deals with a rare and special treaty between the African state of Ahanta and the Netherlands, dating from 1656. In it a form of protection is established which would last for almost 213 years.

[edit] Thomas de Rossy

I've listed this article for peer review because it needs as much comment as possible (even from the bot) before proceeding any further. Prose is the likeliest thing to be an issue, but there is also a need to obtain some comments as to what background info would be most necessary. Request also post at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Thomas_de_Rossy/archive1. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Avenue

This article failed at WP:FAC (see here) although it had few outstanding actionable changes requested. It has been at WP:PR (see here) for over three weeks with nothing but automated comments. Even the automated peer review (see here) had almost no comments. It could use some assistance toward a successful WP:FAC.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

It needs more images. Get two more and it'll be great. The "Today" section needs expansion, and the "History" section could use some too. Apart from that, it's a great article.--Phoenix -wiki 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I added two more modern pictures. I will look for some others.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I added several more older images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, that looks better. What about exanding those sections? I'm fairly confident it'll gain featured status once those have been expanded.--Phoenix -wiki 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After pushing this through WP:GAC and one attempt at WP:FAC, I have pretty much exhausted my resorces in terms of expansion except for going back to the same set of limited resources and adding less important stuff. Unless other editors get interested, I will have to hope the additional images make the difference. Looking at the last FAC discussion, might I interest you in a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have time to do a copyedit later today. As for expanding, I know nothing about the street, though you might want to look at Category:Wikipedians in Chicago — one of them might be able to help you.--Phoenix -wiki 11:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Grabbed a few things off Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings and searched your article fro them. I didn't find anything wrong.--Phoenix -wiki 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The last FAC said it needed independent review or copy editing. If you get a chance to take a closer look, it would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu-German Conspiracy

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review/Hindu-German Conspiracy

[edit] Rogers Act

I would like this article reviewed by peers to get an initial assessment. Thanks Mikebar 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review by John Carter

Intro should be more than a single sentence. It could probably go into a bit more detail of the specifics of the reform. Specific quotations, like in paragraph 3 of "Reform", should be individually sourced. Would probably give the article right now a solid "Start" rating. A bit more specific info would be welcome, like on how contentious the vote for it might have been, how long they debated it, any interesting statements during the debate, etc. "Provisions" section should probably be changed into formal sentences. John Carter 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review/Peer review/Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act

[edit] History of science

I know it needds more references and I'm working on that. I'd like to know what else it needs to get it up to FA Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Kaly99 (talk · contribs)

I've had a look at the Early cultures and Early experimental science section and have a few comments. What is and isn't included as science in early culture seems a bit counterintuitive. Mathematics is not treated as a modern science later in the article and there is a seperate history of mathematics article. While Astronomy, one of the earliest sciences, is only given a brief treatment. There is a lot of information in the Early cultures section which is developments in technology rather than science. For example "The wootz, crucible and stainless steels were invented in India, and were widely exported, resulting in "Damascus steel" by the year 1000" and "The Four Great Inventions of ancient China' are the compass, gunpowder, papermaking, and printing." In order to develop a technology the science behind it doesn't necessarily need to be known. If technologies are to be included then should the early metallurgical developments that led to copper, bronze and iron etc be included?

The periods covered in the early civilisation section end at the 16th century for India and the 17th century for China and then the next section starts at the 12th century (after a brief comment on the 7th century) which I think gives the article an odd flow. The section titles also don't seem very accurate unless there was no experimental science in India before the 16th century and China before the 17th century. In the hellenistic world experimental science occured for example that carried out by Archimedes but there is not information about this in the experimental science section. It might be better to keep the Early civilisation section for very early developments.

The time periods in the article are not complete for example there is nothing mentioned about science in Europe between the ancient greeks and the 12th century. I don't know if there were any scientific developments made by the Romans, although there were technological developments such as concrete, but Bede who lived in the 8th century was definately an experimental scientist and I think there must have been others during this period. The article also seems to be very focussed on particular geographical regions while mentioning others only briefly or not at all. For example Africa, in particular Egypt, South America particularly regarding astronomy, Japan and Indonesia.

This is my first article review and I'm not sure this is useful with the FA stuff but I'm hoping a fresh perspective will help with the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six o'clock swill

This article was the subject of a former Australian collaboration. I am interested in views of other wikipedians as to what would make this article better, particularly for an audience who perhaps doesn't have an Australian background. Matilda ^talk 22:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Review by Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs)

I think the introduction needs expanding so it gives a brief summary of the rest of article, rather than just a sentence on what the 6 o'clock swill is. An extra image would be good, and then you'd be well on your way to GA--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pied-noir

Hi, I just added references and additional material to this article, however I am concerned about NPOV and the article's general readability. Ideally, I would like to see this article grow eventually to GA status.

Any and all help is greatly appreciated! Thanks Lazulilasher (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John the Painter

This was the first article I created for Wikipedia, and I am desirous of getting feedback on it. Historymike (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The existing content is very good. The only real disadvantage is the comparatively short length. If the article could be expanded with more information, it would be at least a solid B, maybe even better. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kfarsghab

I listed this article in order to review and improve the History section of this villageyoucroft (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an informative article, however I felt that it should have a few more pictures to break up the large section of text in the middle of the article, and to make it more appealing to readers. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric medicine

This was rated a B-class, in its early stages. Since that assessment a time ago, a huge amount of work has gone into the article and I'm curious as to what someone else thinks of its current state, and whether they have any suggestions for improvement.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)