Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Eve/archive3

Arthur Eve

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need some fresh eyes on the recent editorial efforts.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: I did both of the two previous peer reviews, including a very lengthy one before the GA submission, so I don't really qualify as "fresh eyes", and it is probably best if someone else has a go. It would assist the reviewer to know what your intentions are for this article; is it going to FAC?

I am not a good enough writer to take this to FAC by myself. Only two things could happen that would lead this to FAC: 1. a volunteer to co-edit this article; 2. there is a flurry of editing about him due to some current news that moves the article toward a higher quality level.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few brief points:-

I noticed "Pateron" in the last line. Perhaps a typo for "Paterson"?
- Fixed. Yes thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link in ref 9 {Constance Eve biography) appears to be broken - check it out.
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a pity to have all the images, and a boxed note, crammed into in one section, thereby squeezing the text here. I know that images are supposed to be in the section tpo which they relate, but it may be possible to be imaginative ansd spread them a little. Think about it, anyway.
- Maybe the GA reviewer will have some suggestions. I am considering removing the image under the infobox though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Post closing comment I forgot that this is already a GA. There will be no review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope a reviewer will pick this up soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]