Wikipedia:Peer review/Ferenc Molnár/archive1

Ferenc Molnár

I've listed this article for peer review because I am in the process of significantly improving the quality of the article and any feedback and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Stories Alive (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

Quick drive-by observations. Firstly, it is very under-sourced. These days, and rightly, sourcing is king and you've whole paragraphs without any at all. At the least, you need to ensure that each para. ends with a source, that covers the preceding content. Secondly, what's happened to the middle? We go from the Early years to the Later years and death, without covering what I assume were the Fruitful years in the middle. Best of luck with it. It's a well-structured article but there's work to do. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Jordan's Peer Review

The lead section of this article is definitely easy to understand but it would be nice for it to draw the reader in a bit more. Right now, it states facts about the author with no real flair. I would love to see a sentence added about his most well-known work or another reason why the reader might recognize his name or work.

The structure is clear but I wonder if the "Writing" section could be attached to the "Theatrical Career" section. Currently, that section is pretty bare but the Writing section is pretty robust. It would be great to see those linked. I think this also will help balance the coverage of the article and the facts about the author's career. I also love the visual content in the article. There are several pictures of the author and his work and I think the picture of his memorial is a nice touch.

Content seems to be mostly neutral but I would take a look at the Writing section again and make sure that all verbage is completely neutral. Some sentences seem to veer into an almost opinion about his reaction to his secretary’s death. I think its technically fine but if you have time to take another look at it, it could improve the article.

The references and citations currently listed seem to be good sources and well thought out but it would be nice to see a few more if possible. The writing section has great links to other pages but almost no citations listed. There are also no citations or links in the “Life” section listing the early years and later years.

Overall the article has a good structure and some solid foundation and taking it to the next level would include updating the citations, links, and ramping up the sentence structure. I’m excited to see the finished product! Jlingreen (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Grace's Peer Review

Really great start on the article. I like the intro piece. It is clear and concise. I really love all the images. As far as structure goes, it is broken up into sections that make sense, but some are very small. Maybe think about either expanding or combining the early life and Budapest/theatrical career section into one? There is a good amount of information in the Later Years and Death section as well as the Writing section. I think paying attention to the early life section as well as before his relocation to America would really add to the quality of the article. Perhaps your citations are not all in your article yet, but it seems like a lot of information without citation. I really enjoyed this article. It is written with an easy-to-read voice and style that is neutral. I am looking forward to you final article! GGRiehl (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)