Wikipedia:Peer review/Anne Garrels/archive1

Anne Garrels

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…... This article has been radically expanded since the original rating of "Start class" was assigned. It is now a far more extensive, substantive and very-well-documented article -- probably the most thorough coverage of the subject anywhere online (I've done exhaustive research and review of nearly everything in-depth, published online, about this subject. Most of those are cited as sources in the article, but none is as complete encyclopedic information as this Wikipedia article is now). Thanks, ~ Penlite (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

@Penlite: If you are looking to update this article's rating from start class, please note that you can update the rating to C- or B-class without a peer review: just update the rating on the talk page. In terms of improving the article, I suggest expanding the lede so that it is a summary of the article's content. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I feel like maybe it's a bit presumptuous to grade my own work. Is that ethical? Is their a WP guideline on such action? ~ Penlite (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Lede expanded as you suggested. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Penlite: WP:ASSESS states that "Two levels, GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article), are assessments made by independent editors, rather than by WikiProjects." Some Wikiprojects, like WP:MILHIST, have assessments for B and A class, but most do not because of the high level of volunteer hours that would require. Most Wikipedians are not concerned about increasing the rating on an article they are working on (except for GA and FA) because most Wikipedians are not concerned about an article's rating of C- or B-class. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

@Penlite: It's clear that you've done extensive research on the subject matter. Given her long career, you could certainly expand the introduction to summarize noteworthy achievements. FiddleheadLady (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FiddleheadLady: I'll try to get that done ASAP. Much else going on right now, but your comment (and that of User:Z1720) have gotten my attention, and will probably yield results shortly. Thanks. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FiddleheadLady: Lede expanded as you suggested. ~ Penlite (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to offer some feedback. Happy drafting! FiddleheadLady (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]