Wikipedia:Peer review/Binders full of women/archive1

Binders full of women

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 it failed at AfD, I feel it should be improved. It is reasonable controversial, as such I would like to bring it up to at least GA standards. A peer review from a non-involved editor will help in that process.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: When you say the article "failed" at AfD, what you mean is that the attempt to delete it failed. As a non-involved editor, I would say that the subject-matter is slightly amusing—all politicians speak clumsily at times, critics make a disproportionate response, and the fun often is seeing the hapless pol trying to squirm his/her way out of the fuss. However, in my view this "gaffe" ranks about 3 out of 10 in the scale of such things; I can think of many far worse instances of mis-speaking, by British as well as US politicians. A few years back one of our people inserted an unwanted "n" when he referred to "the cuts in the Defence Department".

I can offer a few suggestions for improving the article, but in all honesty it is hard to see so slight a matter ever becoming GA-worthy:

The first of the two main sections is head "Meme". In what sense are you using the word "meme" here?

An internet meme.Casprings (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's quotation needs a source

DoneCasprings (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Joel Mathis sentence could be expanded.

After ready the source, I think the sentence should be removed

The "Jeopardy" sentence is trivia, uncited, best removed.

Removed

The "MassGAP Response" sections looks like it could be expanded, given the number of sources you have cited this slim material to.

All the sources say the same thing. I will bundle them. Casprings (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do the "further readings" articles add to what is already in the article? If they contain new information they could be used as sources; otherwise, why bother?

RemovedCasprings (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are format errors in the references. For example, retrieval dates ought to be in a single format. Titles of journals and newspapers should be italicised.

Not much else I can suggest. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]