Wikipedia:Peer review/Desmond Tutu/archive2

Desmond Tutu[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after working hard on this article I'd like assistance in turning it into a Good Article. Input would be appreciated on sections to enlarge, include or remove.

Thanks, --Cazo3788 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Midnightdreary

I think the length of this article is solid (and might lean towards too long rather than no long enough), and there has clearly been plenty of work done. Here are some suggestions, sort of at random:

First things first, I think the lead needs to be expanded as per WP:LEAD.
I'm also confused by the list of references: none of these works seem to be referenced in the footnotes. Should they instead be "Further reading"? My suggestion is to just remove them as the article is already full-cited.
I also noticed a minor discrepancy in the infobox - the date style (i.e. October 7, 1931) does not match the style the article introduces in the first line of the lead. Under "Chairman of The Elders", there's another date that doesn't match, and another under "Role in South Africa". I guess it's worth checking through the whole thing for consistency. And remember to wikify full dates (see WP:DATES).
There's also at least one spot (footnote 32) where the footnote comes before the punctuation (it should be after).
Get sources for all of the information in the "Honours" section. There are other unsourced facts throughout, including his marriage.
Consider making brief paragraphs (i.e. those that have only a sentence or two) either longer or incorporated into the preceding or following paragraphs to bulk them up.
Under "Church reform" there is a block quote that needs to be introduced.
Under "United Nations role", there is a lengthy quote that is unsourced. I wonder if "Political views" should be a section rather than subsection?

That should get you started on further improvements. Best of luck with this one! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Have sorted out some references now and moved some quotes to wikiquote. "Political views" was originally an independent section but became too big so shortened it a lot to put it into proportion as these views date from max 10 years ago, i.e. the rest of his life deserves as much consideration. Thanks again. --Cazo3788 (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]