Wikipedia:Peer review/Glasses/archive1

Glasses

Thanks for looking here. We're mainly looking for many more good references and sources, as well as expanding a few key section. I will add more information when I log in from home. Reason turns rancid 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Midnightdreary:

• Great job on this. I love seeing these kinds of articles getting GA status. Here's some advice that I hope will help the continued improvements to reach FA status. Feel free to take a grain of salt before or after reading. :)

• First, I think the images are a bit heavy. Maybe cut back a bit (why two examples of safety glasses?). That's just a personal opinion. Without a doubt though you'll need to expand the number of sources before the FA review. Throughout, there are also some very short paragraphs (sometimes single sentences) which can/should be incorporated into other small paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is a bare minimum of three sentences per paragraph.

• Your lead is great; one of the best I've seen during my recent peer reviews. If you haven't in a while, double-check WP:LEAD to make sure this matches up.

• The History section is a good section overall, definitely appropriate weight without overdoing it. Consider expanding the first subsection on Precursors. If nothing else, this might as well just bunch into one paragraph. I'm a little confused by "suspected" use. Maybe explain this better and how the emerald fits in. The next 'graph, "was secret to the Egyptians" might not be saying what is intended; it seems to be a non sequitur to suggest those poor Egyptians didn't know about glass. You may also want to source the term "reading stones." Under "Invention of eyeglasses," I'm compelled to suggest starting with the first pictorial depiction of glasses even if it's not chronological, along with the depiction from 1403. So, maybe mention the artwork and follow with, "but the invention dates back to..." It will also help the section transition into the other theories about the original invention. This is a bit counterintuitive, I know, so feel free to ignore this suggestion. Overall, though, this whole subsection is a bit disjointed to follow. Oh, I'd also suggest changing "legendary" to "apocryphal" in reference to Roger Bacon. I'd also add more sources throughout this subsection. Especially the longer 'graph starting with, "Many theories..." and the one "These early spectacles..." The Later developments subsection also needs much more in-line citations.

• From here on, the article definitely has a major problem: I would recommend not even considering sending this article up for FA review until you add citations like crazy to these last few sections. Otherwise, it comes across as original search, no matter how true the information is. Check for sources on those main pages, maybe. Lines like "Nylon frames are usually used" or "Sunglasses are often worn just for aesthetic purposes" can easily be disputed. I also would suggest taking a moment to consider where the weight in the "Types" section falls heaviest. My guess (huuuuge guess) is that most people are interested in corrective or prescription glasses so it would make sense to have more prose there than in, say, sunglasses. I also personally don't like self-referential lines like, "the safety glasses pictured at right..." (or whatever the line is); you never know what editor will come by and edit mercilessly and leave that line nonsensical. I'm sure there's some sources you could find for the Fashion section as well.

• Overall, though, the prose in this article is great and very readable; I'm quite impressed by that. I think the major concern is just a lack of sources throughout. Other than that, a great article and it's definitely on its way somewhere. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)