Wikipedia:Peer review/Religious Society of Friends/archive1
A bounty has been offered for the improvement of this article to featured status. It is one of my pet articles, and I would like to see it as a featured article. I think those of us who have edited it would appreciate suggestions on tightening the prose, improving the organization, and anything else that would be helpful. Thanks. Logophile 10:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Logophile (and others.) I am concerned about this "bounty" thing; I do not want to derail the peer review, so I will point people to my comments on it , and encourage people to discuss that separate issue there. In the meantime, I hope people do help us out with peer review! Sdedeo 10:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good article...a few suggestions: 1 - Get rid of the plethora of red links under "Recommended Reading"...just add the links later, as the articles are created; 2 - a pic of George Fox near the top would be good, maybe one of William Penn later, and perhaps even a contemporary Quaker (like Richard Foster). Good article overall. KHM03 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the redlinks from the bibliography. Perhaps we could also include a photo of a meetinghouse? We have a couple of old engravings of meetinghouses floating around the articles, but it would be nice to get something more contemporary. I totally slept in today and missed meeting (and my meeting is rather boring, just a bunch of folding chairs), but perhaps some attendees could take a photograph of the layout of their meetinghouse as a contemporary example, especially if the layout is permanent (e.g., benches) to show a notable aspect of "eqalitarian" quaker theology? Sdedeo 03:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments.
Sdedeo, I'm thinking about the bounty in terms of what you wrote. I will try to form an opinion on it soon. Thanks for the unlinking. It certainly looks better. I agree about the picture. I am not in a position to be able to do it myself. I could ask around for a submission. KHM03, thanks for responding so quickly. I think you are right about the pictures.Logophile 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)