Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not sure what it is for and whether the topic of the article is not so broad that it will run away with itself. It seems to contain a lot of disparate topics; lots of examples from very specific areas and none from others. Might it be better turned into a list of lists, split off? Or is it better left as it is?
Thanks, Quentin Smith 17:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comments by Cirt
- I agree that the quality of the page is quite poor.
- There are only five (5) sources listed for the entire page, and some of those appear to be linkspam!
- The lede intro sect blatantly fails WP:LEAD.
- The article scope is unclear.
- The page appears to be unencyclopedic. Maybe if it were sourced to WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources, there would be something to work with here.
- It would take a significant amount of time and energy to improve the page to a point where it would have any value whatsoever.