| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm currently making a complete overhaul of the article. My goal for this article is to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page, within a year or two.
Thanks, RMXY (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- While this seems to be a good faith PR request, I would like to reference our discussion here. As I suggested, a peer review should be requested after the re-write or overhaul you are currently working on the article is complete.
- The goal of a peer review is to improve articles that have already received dedicated attention, major issues should be resolved before PR. Looking at the editor contributions, it appears you have very minimal edits at 2%. The article is significantly underprepared, and our peer reviewers are stretched advising the "nearly-theres" how to get their work over the line. Concurrently having this peer reviewed while you are re-writing would be a waste of the reviewers time and efforts, as well as yours, since it would entail a great deal of work both on the prose and with inline-citations which is an intensive undertaking and should be done off-PR.
- Key areas: there are a lacking citations in the prose, which needs work. Proper formatting of the citations is also critical as well as looking through a lense whether they are high-quality and reliable sources. I also see unnecessary interruptions to the flow, some issues on peacock language, which can be addressed with a clean-up of MoS thoroughly. I would also suggest, as I did in my response to your message, a copyedit once you complete the re-write. It seems you have only revised the lead and small portions of the body.
- At a glance, I've found a few issues with the references. Additionally, the citations undergo spot-checks for avoidance of close paraphrasing and plagiarism in the GAN and FAC process. It is the responsibility of the editor/nominator to make sure that these have been addressed prior to nominating. I also suggest that this should be done before putting at PR.
- Ref 2 - citing a YouTube video which is a user uploaded copyrighted material
- US-Asians Tripod is considered a blog and should not be used as a citation
- What makes Filipino Web, AfterEllen, Soap Central, NewsFlash reliable sources?
- Some citations do not have work or publisher parameters
- Article titles should consistently be in either sentence case or title case, irrespective of how they appear in the original, per MOS:TITLECAPS
- Some websites/works are linked, others are not. It should be consistent. Link only on the first instance or link every instance.
Unfortunately, doing a PR now would not be beneficial as the article overhaul barely started. I suggest to close this and complete the re-work off-PR. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)