Wikipedia:Peer review/Thomas Hinde/archive1

Thomas Hinde

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to raise this article the GA status and improve the overall quality of the article. Also, this article is still listed as Stub class, but it has been greatly expanded since that initial ranking.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• It's a good start, but it's not quite ready for a GA review. The main issue is citations.

• Early life is entirely uncited.
  • Changed
• Section headings take lowercase after the initial caps, so: "Early life"
  • Changed
• Sections shouldn't start with "The", so "Death of General Wolfe"
  • Changed
• "It was his good fortune to be attached" sounds POV. Might just say "He was attached"
  • Changed
• It reads like the general died twice: once in the Battle of Quebec and "later" in Hinde's arms.
  • Changed
• The Physician to Patrick Henry section is almost entirely uncited.
  • Changed. Cited and added more information. Also reorganized for better narrative flow.
• You've got some wikitext in the following: ",{{quotation|"At another"
  • Changed.
• The Additional information section should be incorporated elsewhere and removed.
  • Changed.
• This statement in the lead isn't adequately supported by the article's content: "many of his children, grandchildren, and other descendants became prominent historical figures". Who, other than Thomas S. Hinde, does this apply to?
  • Changed. There were links in the info box to other family members.
• The article is substantially underdeveloped; it should contain a lot more detail and context about Hinde, written in an encyclopedic manner. Citations are lacking in many sections, which prevents readers from checking the information. I would suggest going back to the sources and adding a lot more material. Focus on providing depth and context while keeping the prose simple and sticking to a chronological account. Once those building blocks are in place, you can strategize about how to improve the article further. I wouldn't submit it for GA until it's fully cited, at the very least. As it stands, it would probably be failed quickly on the basis of missing citations alone, not to mention that it does not yet cover the subject in an adequately comprehensive way. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. I did an overhaul of the much of the article thanks to your helpful comments above. The article now contains more citations and is better organized.