Wikipedia:Peer review/Freemasonry/archive1

Freemasonry[edit]

This was once a truly great article. It is now being disputed for factual and neutral accuracy. I would like a peer review so we can get it back up to feature article status as it once was. Ardenn 16:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if i'd be able to really make a good review of this article, but one thing that struck me was that, well, it's really long. I mean really long. Is it at all possible you could take some of that and put it into other articles, such as a "symbols of freemasonry" or something? Homestarmy 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead section is totally unencyclopedic, as a review of the guideline will show. It should provide an overview of the subject and the article's contents. Instead, it mentions nothing of FM's origin, mythic or otherwise, and contains hardly any mention of the succeeding nine or so sections. Since my first attempt at redacting this was reverted, I think I'll leave it up to you guys to decide if it should be fixed. I also edited the lede to rm "organisationally," which I'm not sure is actually a word in English, but whatever.

The article is 75k, and while that's not deadly, there is a lot of dead weight that can be trimmed. History of Freemasonry still runs on and on, and could be cut into two paragraphs or less, with the rest moved into the subarticle. The article you're writing is supposed to be an overview of Freemasonry in general, not an exhaustive review of its history. Good luck! Kaisershatner 17:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]