Wikipedia:Peer review/Invasions of the British Isles/archive1

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

Invasions of the British Isles[edit]

Toolbox
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like guidance on how to deal with the article's blank sections, and how to effectively utilize the higher-quality, full sections that I think could propel some version of this article to a GAN. Any ideas?

Thank you, DCItalk 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article appears to be in a very early stage of its development. There is no lead to speak of; there are sections tagged for expansion (one section is completely empty); there is a great deal of uncited material; there is no information given subsequent to 1560; no serious work has been done to investigate images...I could go on. In response to the question "Any ideas", I'd simply say do a lot more serious research using the enormous amount of published material relevant to this subject. Or gather a group of likeminded editors to share the task and make it into a co-operative project. There has been no serious work done on this article for months; the nominator's most recent edit was in August 2011. Peer review is not the arena for initiating projects; it is, as its front page makes clear, "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". My advice, therefore, is to withdraw the article from review, do the work, then bring it back. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

'Comments - I concur with Brian's comments above. The article needs a lot more work before it would benefit from Peer Review. The best thing you can do is start reading and researching the subject. A good place to start would be with the various Oxford Histories of the various subject areas - they will not only give a good overview but also point you towards more works to read and do research in. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this article from this peer review. Thanks to both of you for your input. dci | TALK 19:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)