Wikipedia:Peer review/Gray Wolf/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its one of the higher importance Wikiproject Dogs articles, is a former FA and has now dropped down to a B class. A fair amount of edits have occured since the drop and I'd like to get it back up to GA and eventually FA once again - however I'd like to know where to start as I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks, Miyagawa (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article with a lot of information in it. I think it needs to be better organized and have some MOS issues addressed to get back to FA. With that in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- This is a fairly long article, with a fairly short lead (two paragraphs and a one sentence third). The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, even if it is just a word or phrase. Please see WP:LEAD, which says the lead can be up to four paragraphs.
- Also seen in the lead, but noticable throughout is a tendency to have short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these interrupt the flow of the article and should either be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
- Article has a lot of references, but there are still some places which need refs - for example, the third paragraph in the Physical characteristics section has no refs, or in the next section this she and her mate will spend an extended time in seclusion. Pheromones in the female's urine and the swelling of her vulva make known to the male that the female is in heat. The female is unreceptive for the first few days of estrus, during which time she sheds the lining of her uterus; but when she begins ovulating again, the two wolves mate. needs a ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- I did not check all of the sources used for refs, but make sure they also are reliable and meet WP:RS - for example, what makes this a RS?
- WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between two images, but there are several places that do this, such as twice in the Taxonomy section
- WP:HEAD says not to use the article title in a section header if at all possible, so sections like "Wolves as pets and working animals" should be renamed (and as this is a two sentence section, could it be combined with another?)
- The toolbox in the upper right corner finds five disambiguation links, at least three dead external links used a refs, and no alt text - see WP:ALT. All of these need to be fixed before GAN< let along FAC.
- File:Man-wolves.jpg needs a WP:FAIR USE rationale for inclusion in this article.
- Use of bold in the Body language section does not seem to follow WP:ITALIC
- The article as a whole is very much a hodge-podge - it reads like it has been worked on by many editors and had lots of material added haphazardly over time. One of the main challenges will be to better organize the article so the material flows well and the prose is at a professional level, one of the most difficult criteria for FAs for most articles to meet - see WP:WIAFA
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on species that would seem to be good potential model articles, see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Biology
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)