| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to seek input to become a featured article candidate. It passed good article review fairly quickly and any feedback regarding more stringent FA requirements would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, KimChee (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Just read it from start to finish. Looks very good indeed, and very close to FA standard. Sources look good, it seems comprehensive (with the disclaimer I don't know much about the topic), and it feels like it has a NPOV. I think there's a few too many wikilinks ("vomited" for instance) - only link terms if they either add a lot of relevant info, or if they have a specific technical meaning in the context they are used. The lead could be expanded a little, and rewritten - I'm not quite sure why, but it doesn't seem to flow that well at the moment. Finally, the "see also" section shouldn't include links already in the body of the text (like "blood atonement" and possibly some of the others). But these are minor quibbles, and I think the article is pretty much ready to go to FAC. Nice work. Trebor (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the helpful feedback. The article has been edited accordingly and the lead has been expanded. KimChee (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. It's been a long time since I reviewed regularly for FAC so I dunno about current standards, but in my opinion this is good enough to take there. Trebor (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you again! KimChee (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)