Wikipedia:Peer review/Ken Livingstone/archive1

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

Ken Livingstone[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past few months, I have dramatically revamped the introduction and first half of the article, covering the period of Livingstone's life up until the abolition of the GLC in the mid-1980s. I would be really grateful if anyone could peer review this first half of the article; letting me know what I'm doing right, and what I'm doing wrong. Can you see any POV issues? If so, let me know. Hopefully, from there I can go on to finish the rest of the article through to the same standard in the coming months. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments I had a quick look at the article, here are some impressions:
    There is too much in the top section (too many details, paragraphs too long).
    The writing style is rather disjointed - sentences don't read well, e.g. Here, he failed his eleven plus exam, and so in 1956 began his secondary education at Tulse Hill Comprehensive School.[21][22] In 1957, his family moved out of their council house and purchased their own property at 66 Wolfington Road in West Norwood.[23] Being rather shy at school, he was bullied, and got into trouble with the school authorities for truancy. This is not very logical in its ordering, the writer should re-think this from the point of view of what the reader is thinking about, rather than cramming as many facts in as possible.
    Don't really need to add birth/death dates everywhere, especially not for people who already have their own article (can refer to the link).
    Paragraphs are way too long and unfocused. One paragraph = one idea. The paragraphs here seem more like "how many words can I cram in before I am forced to make another paragraph break".
    Spell-checking might be useful: e.g. I noticed succesfully.
    Hope this helps. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your input JoshuSasori. I appreciate your input, but do not necessarily agree on everything. I intend to take up your advice and cut down the lengths of most of the paragraphs throughout this article, but am unsure if that is really possible in the introductory sections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)