Wikipedia:Peer review/Clara Elsene Peck/archive1

Clara Elsene Peck[edit]

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I worked this article up to what I feel is a decent Wikipedia quality and would eventually like to see it get a GA rating. Any input and improvements to the article happily appreciated.--Scott Free (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely ignorant about this topic and once I clicked the link, figured I might as well give you some comments. As I looked further, though, I noticed a sourcing problem: the two sentences in the 'early life' section are essentially the same as those on the website http://www.ortakales.com/illustrators/Peck.html (note 1). If you are the maintainer of that site, then you need to properly document the GFDL release of the text; if you are not the maintainer, then you need to substantively reword the statements.

My two main sources are '200 years of American Illustration' and 'The Illustrator in America' - I reworded the first sentence, but I kept the Ortakales info, because it has bits of info that aren't in my main sources. They seem reliable.

In any case, the website does not look like a reliable source - particularly for the quote attributed to Peck. fixed CEP quote

Since the site gives what look like good book references, you'd avoid these problems and get more material for your article by tracking those down instead of trying to cite this potentially unreliable web intermediary.

An additional, minor point about citations - in the illustration section, the magazine examples given in the references support the statement that she illustrated for those magazines, but not necessarily that she 'specialized' in particular types of illustration.

I reworked this, sticking closer to sources.

On other points, the lead would be much improved with the addition of a general time period, for those who do not recognize the other names mentioned (I'm sure I'm not the only one who mentally blocks out infoboxes). Something like 'early twentieth century illustrator who later worked on....' would be sufficient.

I put in some stuff on this.

Wikilinks or additional information on her comic book work would be very helpful. A bit more was added.

The list of illustrations is, well, listy, and doesn't communicate (to the ignorant, at least) the importance of the works or of the style they reflected. This has been moved around

Adding a section on critical reception, either of Peck's work in particular or of her style/format in general, would help establish context, as would an explanation of how and when women illustrators became involved in comic books. Added some stuff on this

Lastly, there's a rather large image:text ratio in this article considering that some of the images are non-free, and in addition, some of them have bad or incomplete tags. For example, File:CEP-Aspen.jpg says public domain, but lists its date of publication as 1947;.

template glitch, fixed

I'm not convinced 'old ebay auction' qualifies as a valid source even for a public-domain image, much less a non-free one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, OR, much appreciated. All good points. I'll make sure to address them where possible; I have access to most of the necessary references or at least am aware of other relevant sources. --Scott Free (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help! Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]