Wikipedia:Peer review/Solomon P. Sharp/archive1

Solomon P. Sharp[edit]

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have done a significant overhaul of this article, which was largely WP:COPYVIO and badly WP:POV. I believe it is well-sourced and well-written, but my instincts tell me it will not pass a GA review as it is now. I think I've been working on it too long to see its flaws. Please provide any feedback on issues you think would need to be addressed for the article to pass a GA review. I'd also like to solicit opinions on whether or not the article could ever be considered for FA. Is it too short? Are there too few reliable sources on the subject? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32[edit]

Actually, I have little to add on this. The article seems quite appropriate in comprehensiveness and length. The references look great; there aren't likely to be copious sources on 19th century attornies general of U.S. states. I would look into going to the League of Copy Editors as a next step; copyediting is NOT my strength, but there are many people there who are very good at it. Well done on this one. It is clearly GA quality already, and looks quite close to FA quality as well. Good job and good luck, and I am sorry I can't add more since the article is so great as it is! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your generous review! I wasn't aware of the "League of Copyeditors." Given some of the vague "this article needs a copyedit" feedback I'm prone to get at FAC this is definitely good info to have. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]