Wikipedia:Peer review/Animal Farm/archive1
Rarely do I find an article on a book this well written. It is quite comprehensive and references itself where necessary. Furthermore it is neutral and stable. I believe it shows Wikipedia at it's best. b_cubed 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've only glanced through it quickly but my initial impression is that the lead is far too short for such a long article, as per Wikipedia:Lead section. violet/riga (t) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The content is mostly fine, but I think that the sections that interpret the book need references. A lot of them are fairly common knowledge but there are some that are more obscure. --Cherry blossom tree 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 01:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lead is too short, please expand. {{spoiler}} and related are a must. While lists in the character section are passable, the one in 'Allusions and references to actual history, geography and current science' needs to be changed into normal text, and the entire heading is too long. 'Cultural references' section should also be delisted. Finally, this needs many more inline citations, especially for significance. Plus those citations should be academic: such an important book has surely generated wealth of academic comments, those should be utilised.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Very bullet pointy. Maybe covert some into sections? Dev920 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cliff's Notes is used as a reference. C'mon, we can do better than that! -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- The allusions/cultural references sections need to be prosified. The Wookieepedian 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)