Wikipedia:Peer review/Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year/archive1

Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year[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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to promote this to featured list. However, there are some things that worry me. The main problem is the "Notes" column in the table. I do not know whether it is needed. I did not add it, it was brought in by another user, so I do not know if it should be included, because I do not think that the entire column could be filled, let alone referenced. Also, any corrections connected to grammar or spelling would be appreciated.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: The titles and the article made me chuckle, here are some suggestions for improvement.

I think I would add annual or annually to the first sentence, so perhaps The Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, also known as the Diagram Prize, is a humorous literary award that is given [annually] to the book with the oddest title.
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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. Pretty much everything after the first sentence of the lead (for example the prizes given and some of the history) are only in the lead.
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - I think much of the current lead could be a history and prizes section. Please see WP:LEAD
I think the notes are useful, especially for the more bizarre / incomprehensible titles. There are only 6 entries without notes, 2 of which are no award, so I would add notes for the other 4.
I think some of the publishers could be linked, for example Harry N. Abrams is now ABRAMS Books

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]