Wikipedia:Peer review/Bringing Them Home/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because while the listings of people do seem to be overly long and unimportant, I'm not sure what exactly to do with it and would like to know what else can be improved about it, and why it's C-class instead of B. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]Hi Aaron Liu, anything B-class or below is usually decided by individual editors based on their best judgement, and most editors are not bothered by this classification. It is only when an article is nominated for good article status that a second, uninvolved editor needs to evaluate the article. Here are some comments below on how the article can be improved:
- Every paragraph should have a citation at the end of it, minimum.
- Beware of MOS:OVERSECTION: I do not think every Australian state needs its own level 3 heading, and these can probably be merged together.
- The article should talk about the legacy of this report. After the immediate apoligies, how has his report influenced policies?
- Look for more sources at WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, Internet Archive, DOAJ.org, and your local library system.
- The list of people in the Commissioners section is probably not needed.
- I think more information needs to be included about the meetings. What was the process for submitting information? Anything noteworthy happen at any of these meetings?
I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)