Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Pomeroy Widney/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Pomeroy Widney[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… while it has been pruned down to a reasonable size, I would like to know where specific and clear improvements might be made.

Thanks, Collect (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:LinguistAtLarge[edit]

After a quick scan of the article, the following comes to mind:

  • Consider splitting some of the information to other articles, to shorten this one (it's still on the long side).
  • I don't think all the instances of "Widney and" and "Widney as" at the beginning of the section headings are necessary. I'd remove them all.
  • I would do a drastic re-organization of the article. I think there are too many sub-headings, which break up the flow of the article. For example, I would rename "Biographical details" to "Early life" and include all the information from Ohio/childhood until the graduate education section (all without the sub-headings) and the information in "military surgeon" section. Then I would have a "Marriages" section, with the information on both marriages (without the sub-headings). Then I'd have a "Early career" section followed by other sections such as Public service, Writing, etc. Instead of splitting the article up thematically, I would go for more chonological based divisions.
  • There is a mixture of citation styles-- footnotes and "(Frankiel 97)" style citations. Pick one or the other for consistency WP:CITATIONS.
  • I see at least one instance of a comma after the reference instead of before it.
  • The article has a lot of long quotations, I'm not sure that is appropriate.
    •  Done Some of the quotes have been removed and it looks much better. Sometimes it's better to discuss and summarize what the source is saying instead of quoting large chunks of it verbatim. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Widney and Anti-Semitism" -- I'm pretty sure headings shouldn't be linked.
  • "List of works" should be "Works" and the sub-sections should be "Books (authored)" "Books (co-authored)" and "Aricles"
  • All books listed both in the "Works" section and "References" need a linked ISBN.
    • I'd still like to see ISBNs for the books in the Works section, where available. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journal articles listed as sources should use a {{cite}} template of some sort and link to the article when possible, especially instead of the simple bracketed links following some of the journal articles.
  • Are all the books and journal articles listed in the references section actually used for inline references? If not, they should be listed in a separate "Further reading" section.
    •  Done See my note below about having a short, selected "Further reading" section (I think that would be good). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks -- I has substantially shortened this mess and wanted some affirmation that I am on the right track. You shold have seen it before. No idea how much infobox material would help -- he is pretty much old news by now. Collect (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Infoboxes are for old material as well as new. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Found ISBNs not available for many of the OOP material, removed section headers, most of "also see" and "journals" as being either unrelated to Widney or just Ossa on Pelion. Now to those pesky quotes. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that soe of the minor or unimportant stuff is gone -- the article is about the right size I hope! From 194K to 58K -- and it is getting readable (well, I would like more input here). Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking much better. Good job. If there is relevant literature on this man, a short "Further reading" section at the end would be appropriate, but I'd keep it short and only mention a few of the very best resources concerning him. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss a comma after ref somewhere? All the extra Widneys in sectuion names are gone as well, I thunk <g>. Fixing all the refs will be a pain, I fear. Collect (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Widney as" and "Widney and" at the beginning of section headings are still there. The refs will be a lot of work, but if you're interested in improving the article, they need to be fixed. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To proceed from here, you can finish all the unchecked items from above, and the following items as well: — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The new (short) "Further reading" section (restored by Smjwalsh) is fine. Now it just needs ISBNs.
  • Go back through the history and restore the references to books that are cited in the article. The references section currently has a lot of notes of the form "Rand 97-98." or "Nash 72.". These need a corresponding reference item at the bottom of the references section with the bibliographic information related to each note. See WP:CITE for more help.
  • There are a lot of date ranges like "1876 to 1901" and "1814-1873". These should all be consistent and use the correct dash WP:DASH.


I think I got the headers now -- sorry. Now to get Rand properly cited. Any chance of this getting to "reasonable article" status? Collect (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Joseph_Pomeroy_Widney/archive1&oldid=293064577"