| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like some feedback of this article according to potential GA status, and perhaps a little copyediting as it is close to going in DYK. Cheerio! Sandman888 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by Jappalang
One nagging thought as I read this article is its slant. It is quite a negative portrayal of its subject (with words like "skinheads" and constant condemnation of the group, what would you expect). However, the project's policy is to reflect published information by reliable sources; if none of them had anything good to say, the article here would likely be of the same state... However, the phrasings we choose to use should be less emotive and controversial (WP:NPOV); i.e. tone down any superlatives or adjectives, look at things from a detached viewpoint.
- Which superlatives? I have only written what academic sources have to say on the subject. Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Which source stated "some members [were] convicted for death threats and murder"? Only one member was convicted for murder, and that does not make the whole lot guilty of what was written. What has the murder of a transvestite to do with Boixos in all that ruckus mentioned in the fourth paragraph? Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The structure of the article is still lacking: there is only one History and a very short Current issues section. As far as I know, FACs are not enamoured with "current"; please find another way to present the information there. Try Origin/Formation, Demographics, Ideals, and Public perception.
- So public perception would be fine? Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Public perception or something. Basically, an article with one single big History section and nothing else does not make for conducive reading. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of cataloguing every act of theirs that made it to the papers, find common themes among these acts (crass, violence, or some other motivation or theme) and present them, using one or two examples for illustration.
- I must insist that this is how they are presented and their murders and crass celebrations important for understanding them. I'm sure our article on Nazi Germany catalogue Auschwitz, Genocide, war crimes etc. etc. and not merely use them to illustrate a point Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The point is this: right now, the article is mostly a simple list of acts. No analysis of the factors that gave rise to these acts are given. Neither is there a critical analysis of football hooliganism and such. As it is, it is all a list, akin to simply saying: they did this, then they did that; that happened, the newspapers reported they did this, they did that, all without themes to bind them together. What happened to "Expert A looked at the background of the club and suggested that things might have been different if this did not happen; expert B thought it was more likely that circumstance that encouraged such acts to happen. All in all, historians agree that without event C happening, the Cs would never had taken power in the first place."
- Why was it stated that Nunez "[used] them for his own political gain", yet not explained what were the "gains" nor the effects? What were the effects of the restrictions that had been placed on the Boixos? The article, by constantly listing the acts, did not analyse if these restrictions were of any use. What I suggested was to look for such analysis and present them with summarised versions of the acts in support. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, what sources are "Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul", "Dobson, Stephen; Goddard, John A", "Simonis, Damien", etc? Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Right now with the way things are presented, I am not sure if this can be reach Good article quality or not. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)