Wikipedia:Peer review/Mother Teresa/archive2

Mother Teresa

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This recently delisted GA needs feedback from experienced editors here at Peer Review. Comments on how to treat Mother Teresa's reception are particularly welcome:

Should the article contain a "Criticism" section, or should praise nd criticism be woven together? I've noticed that few GA- and FA-class articles have criticism sections, but there's no set policy. Feedback from experienced GA and FA participants/delegates is appreciated since this article will hopefully be renominated next year
Suggestions on how to handle spinoff articles dealing with critical comments, such as Christopher Hitchens' critiques of MT
Thoughts on which praise and which criticism to include. Rival cottage industries churn out books, websites and blogs extolling and condemning MT; some of them aren't noteworthy and others are shameless rehashes of others' work; do all of them merit inclusion?

Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick glance at the article there are a number of dead linked references. Plus a quick note about point 3, anything that doesn't past as a reliable source shouldn't be included. Mattg82 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have read though the article with interest. I have not carried out a detailed prose review, though there are clearly issues there; I have noted a few of the prose-related problems at the end of this review. More general problems which in my view need attention are:-

Basic article construction: Biographical articles tend to consist of "life" sections (largely chronological) and "assessment" sections. Your article conforms to this. Typically the "life" sections will occupy most of the text—two-thirds or more. In your article the text is about 5200 words, not counting the lead, of which the "life" sections account for a mere 1785 words, or just over a third of the article, with the remaining two-thirds concerned with "assessment". This is the reverse of the usual proportions, and makes me wonder if the "life" sections are detailed enough. The impression I got reading them was that they were skimpy compared with the amount of detail in the later sections. I would ask you to look again at the first four sections, that deal with Mother Teresa's life, and consider whether these do represent a full and comprehensive account. (It may be that some biographical material has strayed into the "assessment" sections and should be relocated).
Another "construction" point: the lead at present is too short to fulfil its required function to provide a general overview of the whole article, touching on all the major aspects covered in the main article's text. It needs to be lengthened.
The article is considerably under-cited. There is one "citation needed" tag in place, but there could be many more. There are uncited quotations and other statements at the ends of numerous paragraphs, which is particularly noticeable. A rule of thumb is to ensure that every separate paragraph ends with a citation.
"Legacy and depictions in popular culture" section: The name is a misnomer. A partial list of commemorations is not a legacy, and the details given of films aren't worth elevating into a separate subsection, though they could be woven into the main text. As to "legacy", ask yourself: "What did Mother Teresa leave behind for the benefit of later generations?" That should be the substance of a legacy section; the list of commemnorations can be left to the link.
There are various format errors/inconsistencies in the citations, including "pp." for single page refs, use of "page" rather than "p.", different formats for retrieval dates and for ISBNs, etc.
Too many external links, and a very lengthy further reading list, might suggests that the article itself is not comprehensive and needs to be supported by other material. I suggest you prune these; they are bound to contain considerable overlaps of material.
Nobel Peace Prizes are not offices whereby the holder is either "preceded by" or "followed by". They are lifetime awards; it is irrelevant who won it the year before or the year after. Suggest you delete this pointless information.
Prose often lacks flow, and particularly in the "life" sections tends to be jerkily written in short paragraphs. There are also some oddities of phrasing; examples:-
- "Her father, Nikollë Bojaxhiu was possibly stemming from Prizren, Kosovo" - "stemming from" not idiomatic English (you could simply leave out "stemming")
- "She never again saw her mother or sister" (normal phrasing would place "again" at the end of the sentence"
- "Dr. Fox makes it a point to contrast hospice, on the one hand, with what he calls "Mother Teresa's Care for the Dying" on the other hand; noting that, while hospice emphasizes minimizing suffering with professional medical care and attention to expressed needs and wishes of the patient, her approach does not." The word "hospice" is not a mass noun that can be used in this way. In each case you should say "hospices" (plural).
- Not strictly a prose point, but you should use a better location description for Darjeeling than "near the Himalayas" - that's far too vague.
- You should also clarify why "Sister" Teresa became "Mother Teresa". All you have is a quote: "Though no one knew it at the time, Sister Teresa had just become Mother Teresa". Why was this so?
I would recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit.

I hope these points will give you a basis for beginning to improve the article. If you need to discuss any point with me,please leave a note on my talkpage. Note: I have not considered the "dead link" points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments

Lead: I would start with "Mother Teresa (born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu) ... ". First common name, then birth name.
What is Missionaries of Charity should be explained in lead. The "religious congregation" part should be included
Similarly "Bharat Ratna" should be explained as India's highest civilian honour
The article needs a copyedit. Odd constructions like "She never again saw her mother or sister"
Explain jargon. Give some context. Eg. "Bengali" -> the Bengali language
"Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the prime minister," Which prime minister? Nehru???
All quotes need references "the hungry, the naked...."
WP:OVERLINK: Calcutta is linked thrice in "Missionaries of Charity" Done

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]