Wikipedia:Peer review/Green Party of Canada/archive1
I think it's generally a well-written article that could use some minor tweaking, and thus I'm nominating it for peer review. Ardenn 06:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Two quick things to take a look at: the lead needs to be longer to provide readers with a summary of the article. Aim for two to three paragraphs, and see WP:LEAD for ideas. If your end goal is to become a featured article, references and sources will be required. Checkout WP:CITE and some articles that use referencing to get a feel for the method. --NormanEinstein 13:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- The article requires references (put all sources used in writing the article in a "References" section and leave the "Ext.links" for recommended further (online) readings see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#External links (also called Further reading)).
- Inline citations are also required to show where the sources were used and to reference those 'debatable' points (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Footnote overview.
- All the links in "Provincial and Territorial Green parties" are already displayed in the {{GPC}} template, so this section is unnecessary.
- Sections that consists of only lists (like "Leaders" and most of "Election results") are frowned upon. Consider converting the leaders into a table and use prose to describe what each person did as the leader (how they influenced the party). See Bath School disaster#The day of the disaster or Saffron#Chemistry for ideas integrating tables into prose.
- Very short sections are usually signs that something is not right with the organization of the article. For instance, the one-sentence section "Current policy debates" can be merged into "Policies"
- The "History" should be written as in summary style of that main article (see Wikipedia:Summary style --maclean25 04:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)