Wikipedia:Peer review/Mark Speight/archive1

Mark Speight

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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article for the past few days, and I'd eventually like to get it to FA status. Since I have no experience in that field, I'd like some feedback on this article and how to make it better.

Thanks, -- how do you turn this on 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions: Good job so far, and I'm not sure why it isn't still a WP:GA nom; one thing that springs out is the number of redlinks, and although that is not fatal to a GA assessment, the acid test is whether they are ever likely to be articles in their own right. I'm not so familiar with those programmes, but my suspicion is that they would be difficult to sustain notability on their own and might be better unlinked. One reference to Speight's CV would cover his involvement with them. I would think that GA should be tried first, and if time permits I will give some more detailed analysis with that in mind. --Rodhull andemu 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got some advice from someone who told me to take it straight to PR if I wanted to get it featured. I don't think it would be wise to run a GA at the same time as a Peer Review.

Yes, I agree with you about the red links. I'll either create the articles, or remove the links. Thanks for the comments! -- how do you turn this on 23:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the links. The red ones left I feel are notable enough to be created.

Good job Hdytto! I remember I was involved in the debate over this article when Collins and he died, arguably being the reason Collins is still an article (after two AfDs). I'll see what I can do with the reviewing (though I'm not much of one).
- Refs no. 20, 23, and 24 need a "work=". Further, 24 needs a "date=". Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and was a victim of bullying at school" Is this nessessary in the lead? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was also a presenter for many other shows" This was already mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. Remove it or merge it to the first paragraph. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last para of lead - I personally don't like 2 "it was found"s in the short paragraph. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything. Thanks for the help! -- how do you turn this on 17:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Some BBC refs are italicised, some not. Please make this consistant. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. -- how do you turn this on 12:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Have you consulted the 4,700 news results for this man? Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 19:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes.~~ No - is that a serious question?? In any case, bear in mind that a lot of those are subscription/registration based sites. I'll have a look through the ones I can. I just noticed I've missed off a rather important section :/ -- how do you turn this on 20:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've added some stuff about legacy, and made it clearer why he committed suicide. However, there really isn't much else in those news sources that isn't already in the article. -- how do you turn this on 20:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am serious. I know most of these are subscription/fee/not in english/repeat information, but there still are 1,020 free English language news sources. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've included everything I've found that isn't trivial. However, I do not think it's reasonable to expect me to look through over 1000 news sources. -- how do you turn this on 14:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]