Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Louisville Alert posted:

v • d • e
WikiProject Louisville
Fleur-de-lis
Task forces: Coming Soon

This department conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality. The process is intended to make marginal and good quality articles to excellent, encyclopedic ones. However, use of a peer review for articles assessed below WikiProject Louisville's B-Class may not be a good use of reviewers' time.

Editors with article requests involving significant policy and/or POV concerns or edit wars should use Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and/or Noticeboards (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for living persons and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for others.) before a peer review.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors — usually members of WikiProject Louisville. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete. Please consider reviewing someone else's article too, if you request yours :-)

Contents

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Requesting a review

  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write what you hope to gain from a peer review (what are your goals? FA? GA? etc) and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Louisville/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of requests on this page.
  6. Add a link to your article to the beginning of the Peer Review announcement list.

[edit] Responding to a request

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

[edit] Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current archive page.
  3. Remove article from Peer review announcement list


[edit] Requests

[edit] SHPS

I would like t o get this article to good article or status and I am sort of stuck. Any input would be greatly sppreciated. M-BMor 03:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it needs inline citations. ShadowHalo 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Added intext ref. Thanks for the feedback M-BMor 21:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions:

  • The article reads like it was written by a publicity firm. Isn't there any criticism or impartial coverage of this firm?
  • There seem to be a lot of inappropriate capitalizations of words. E.g. "...including Large market...", "...include Health plans...", "...Though Based in...", &c.
  • More wikilinks are needed.
  • It's Colmes, not Combs.
  • The inline citations should use proper cite templates and be placed following punctuation marks.

Thank you.— RJH (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you corrected colmes, moved the cites behind punctuation, wikilinked some more things. Trying to make it sound more "encyclopedic"..M-BMor 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The expansion of the history section would be great, and some expansion/citing on the locations would help as well.--Wizardman 03:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Articles archived - 2006