Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Clinton/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bill Clinton[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it to GA

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Dana Boomer
  • Several dead references/external links, see this tool.
Fixed a bunch, could probably do more--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Prose needs cleanup. For example, just in a quick look at the Public opinion section, you find:
    • "of any Postwar President leaving office" Postwar shouldn't be capitalized, and which war are we talking about?
Well i took off the capital, but the stat is general of any president leaving office after a war hence postwar --Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Although 26% chose "none", and 5% were not sure." This is not a complete sentence.
Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "they'd". Don't use contractions in article text, unless they are in quotes.
Done also fixed one other one that was hiding. --Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Percent should be written out, rather than using the "%" symbol.
Don't think so, look at Obama's. --Iankap99 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Check the prose throughout, the above are just examples from one section.
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs and short sections. The short sections make the TOC really long, while they both make the article choppy. Try combining sections/paragraphs.
  • Don't use in-text external links, as you do in the Governor of Arkansas section.
  • Travelgate controversy is completely unsourced, and as it is a controversy and you are giving various people's/group's opinions, it needs to be sourced.
  • Second term, 1997–2001 also needs to be sourced, as it is giving statistics. Judicial appointments also, again for statistics.
  • Clinton has received many honorary degrees.[173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181] Isn't there one source that lists several or all of the degrees he's received, instead of having nine individual sources?
  • The mainly web sourcing is probably fine for GA status (I haven't checked reliability of all the links, hence the "probably"), but if you are looking to go to WP:FAC then the sourcing will need to pass the "high quality" requirement. This means that you will be needing many more academic sources, such as books and peer-reviewed journal articles, as opposed to all of the web sourcing that is being used now.

I need to run now, but will be back later today with more comments on sourcing and images. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC) More comments:

  • Image captions should be short and sweet. Several of them are currently quite long - move the information to the body or remove it altogether.
Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Text should not be sandwiched between images.
  • Web references should always include a publisher and access date, and an author when applicable.
  • Books (including those accessed through Google books) should be formatted as books and include full information, including publisher, author, full title, isbn, page number etc. Google books references should have the actual book publisher listed, not Google books (they didn't publish the books, they just made them available for viewing).
  • What does "CNN-Clinton_aquiter" mean for Ref #73?
  • For archived links, the archiver is not the publisher - again, they are just making it available, so list the actual publisher.
Fixed 2, I think that's all of them--Iankap99 (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Consider removing the level headings from the external links section and instead using bolded headings, perhaps through the use of the ";" key (at the start of the section, a semi-colon bolds the title without adding it to the TOC as a header). Also, take care of the tag at the top of that section. Remove links that are already used as sources, and make sure that any that are left are truly necessary for a full understanding of the subject.
Done--Iankap99 (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's probably it for now from me. This isn't everything that could be changed with the article, but it is the major things that would be the first to jump out at me if I were reviewing the article for GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. I think that the article has a ways to go before it is of GA status, although it is in better shape than many of our other US presidential articles. Dana boomer (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)