| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Good Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Also so we can have a standard article for other wikipedia projects to translate from seeing how all of them are not up the standards that we have.
Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is certainly an important article - thanks for wanting to improve it. It currently has two major cleanup banners (citations needed, and factual accuracy questioned) which would normally disqualify it from peer review and would be quick fails at WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- Article needs many more references, for example the whole Organizations section has no refs, and there are many places in the article that need refs.
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If there are sentences after a ref in a paragraph that do not themselves have refs, they need refs too.
- Make sure that all the sources cited have enough information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- References have to be to relaible sources and Wikipedia is not a reliable source - so things like current ref 21 to the Mexican constitution need to be fixed.
- There is a toolbox on this PR page which has a disambiguation links checker and an external links checker. It finds several dabs which need to be fixed and at least two dead external links.
- The disputed accuracy has to be resolved - this would also be a quick fail at GAN
- The article seems pretty short to me for such a broad and important topic. As one example, the section on secular ethics is all about Holyoake and 1896 - has nothing else or new been done in this area in the past 115 years?
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
- Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way Please see WP:LEAD
- Please read WP:See also and prune the See alsos.
- Many of the further reading entries seem like they should be made into references instead.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one 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 ><>°° 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)