| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an academic project. It is also only a portion of the information I want to include in the article, and before I go forward I'd like to hear comments.
Thanks, emilyblume EmilyBlume (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comments from Dana Boomer
First, which article is being reviewed? The Articles for Creation submission by Sweetmoniker or the Costume design article on which the PR tag has been posted? I'm going to assume the latter, and complete my review for that. With regard to the former, Facebook and Itunes are not reliable sources, and a declined AfC submission is not a good candidate for a Peer Review. Now, I should have comments on the Costume design article up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're planning to go with this article - General improvement? WP:Good article nominations? - but there is quite a bit of work that can be done to make it conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Specifics:
- The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and not include anything that isn't found in the body. Much of the current lead is unique to the lead - this should be moved to the body and then summarized (with the rest of the article) in the lead.
- The cleanup banner at the top of the History section is a major issue - technically, articles with cleanup banners should not be brought to PR. This section is completely unreferenced. Also, it's quite short for covering over 2000 years of history. I realize this isn't the history of costumes, but instead of costume design, but there still has to be more than two paragraphs worth?
- Design process - I can't tell if the reference at the end of this section is supposed to cover the entire section or not - if so, it should be repeated with at least each new paragraph. Also, prose is preferred over bulleted lists, and I think that much of this section could be fairly easily converted to prose, with more context given so that the layman reader understands the process.
- Production process - Again, additional references are needed. And again, prose is preferred over bullet points. As with the previous section, if the bullet points were turned into prose and given additional context, it would be much easier for the lay reader to follow.
- Overall, the references that you're using so far look good with regard to reliability.
I hope the above comments help. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)