| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this needs a slash-and-burn style edit. Many problems exist with this article, but I think people closer to the subject need to carry it out compared to my efforts, which would reduce the page to a definition of the item as a stub article. Not because the subject deserves it, but the disorganization is so blatant the only way I could see it being made worthy of inclusion is starting over.
While it's a niche-form of juggling (not a fad... not widespread, but not a fad), the people involved with editing the page in the past are experts on the subject even if they haven't adhered to Wikipedia's rules in editing the page. This needs serious TLC if the changes are to keep.
Thanks, Pepper2k3 (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Peer review (PR) is generally meant for well-developed and relatively polished articles being prepared for WP:GAN, WP:FAC, or WP:FLC. The first problem that I see with this article is that it lacks sources. The entire article violates WP:V. Until the claims in the article are properly sourced, other concerns are at best secondary. My rule of thumb for meeting WP:V is to provide a reliable source (explained at WP:RS) for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. I see that the article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2006 and that the tag says, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." If you care about the article, make a good-faith effort to find sources; discuss your plans on the article's talk page; then, if no one cares to discuss the matter, remove the material for which you can find no sources, and re-do the article according to your best judgment. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)