Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Saner Wonggoun
Saner Wonggoun[edit]
I hoped to move this on to WP:GA review, but wanted to first get WPBIO's peer review, following with a general peer review. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yannismarou[edit]
The article as it is now is a stub. It is well sourced and with a quite good prose but it needs expansion and more infos. It must be organized per WP:LAYOUT with a proper structure, with a lead per WP:LEAD and the proper sections (or even sub-sections) if necessary. The current version is quite premature for a thorough peer-review. I would also like to stress that in some parts (e.g., "United States Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter I, Section 801, § 885 & 918 (also the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 85 and 118)") the langage is not as encyclopedic as it should be (the above sentence reads like a legal document and not an encyclopedic article). Continue the good work!--Yannismarou 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article and it's information as they stand now are all that I could (at the time) learn about the subject. If I cannot find more information (and even before making those efforts), do you still recommend the subdivision of the article into sections? Reading WP:LEAD, I'll work more on fleshing that out to fully summarize the whole article. And the last, I just rather enjoyed researching exactly what statutes dictated what; maybe I should just reference them (with [ref]s)? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you cannot find further infos, the article, as it is now, remains a stub. And with sub-sections or not I'm afraid this could be a problem in GAC. Now I am also a jurist and I know about legal provisions! But, you know, I see here too many numbers, titles, chapters, sections, subchapters etc in a row! Why don't you just say: According to the Title 10 of the United States Code and articles 85 and 118 of the Uniform COde of Military Justice ... And again! It is still too legal!! If you put them in a note, I think they wouldn't be a burdain for the main text. But again, this is my personal opinion and not the one correct opinion. You can have more of them, in order to make your mind!--Yannismarou 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Opinions are why I brought it here! I went ahead and dropped all the legal references into a citation, and it should read better now. I'll go ahead and look for more from my military sources if I can, but in the interim -- should I subdivide it as it is now, or wait to see if I get more? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion is gather more material and then sub-divide it. Reasearch and material is the first step towards a good article. Good structure comes next!--Yannismarou 09:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Opinions are why I brought it here! I went ahead and dropped all the legal references into a citation, and it should read better now. I'll go ahead and look for more from my military sources if I can, but in the interim -- should I subdivide it as it is now, or wait to see if I get more? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if you cannot find further infos, the article, as it is now, remains a stub. And with sub-sections or not I'm afraid this could be a problem in GAC. Now I am also a jurist and I know about legal provisions! But, you know, I see here too many numbers, titles, chapters, sections, subchapters etc in a row! Why don't you just say: According to the Title 10 of the United States Code and articles 85 and 118 of the Uniform COde of Military Justice ... And again! It is still too legal!! If you put them in a note, I think they wouldn't be a burdain for the main text. But again, this is my personal opinion and not the one correct opinion. You can have more of them, in order to make your mind!--Yannismarou 22:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)