Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nature fakers controversy/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Nature fakers controversy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a quirky article on a quirky literary debate that no one remembers anymore. Despite it being rather un-flashy subject matter, its next step is hopefully FAC. Any and all comments/suggestions are welcome, especially in regard to the FA criteria. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting read on a topic I was not aware of. I think this is already at the level for FAC, here are some very nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • The dab finder finds one disambiguation link
  • I know you prefer succinct leads - it really is a good summary of the article, but if I were writing the lead I think I would make it three paragraphs.
  • I like the images throughout, but am a bit puzzled by the lead image. It is nice and there is not anything wrong with it, but I just didn't get how it really related to the article except for being from a Seton book. I am not sure if you'd want to remove it from the section it is in now, but the woodcock putting a cast on its leg seems to me to be the most interesting / applicable lead image - it sums up the problem (unrealistic animal behavior) in a succinct and almost unbelievable way - this is of course your call.
  • I agree, and you've exactly summed up my previous misgivings about a lack of a proper lead image. I think I've made a better choice by using an image from Long's School of the Woods, which emphasizes animal learning vs. instinct, since that is what started Burroughs off on his tirade in the first place. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help add context to add years in places - for example the year the Sierra Club was founded or Kipling's The Jungle Book was published.
  • Should this be "submitted a stern reply to"? within weeks of the publication of "Real and Sham Natural History", Long submitted a stern reply in the Boston Evening Transcript.
  • In the "Controversy dies down (1904–1905)" section, why are the names of Seton and Roberts spelled out in full again (multiple times)?
  • Needs a ref In his letter, of which he also sent a copy to Burroughs, Roosevelt pointed out the physical difficulty a wolf would have if attempting to kill its prey in such a manner, while also commenting upon the unlikeliness of other wolf stories written by Long.
  • Is it worth explaining the fakir / faker distinction (since one of TR's interviews uses fakir)?
  • This is not really explained in full elsewhere, but I added a short note about how TR standardized it as "faker", rather than "fakir". No idea as of yet why the author of the original piece used "fakir", but I'll keep looking. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do people ever use the term Nature fakers today about more modern literature - Watership Down or Raptor Red for example?
  • Italics of The New York Times are not consistent within the article.

Hope this helps. Thanks for peer reviewing articles at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please let me know when this is at FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments, Ruhrfisch! I'll work on the rest shortly. María (habla conmigo) 12:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Nature_fakers_controversy/archive1&oldid=1078795194"