Wikipedia:Peer review/C. S. Lewis/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I think this is a pretty encyclopedic treatment of C. S. Lewis as a person; I'd like to renominate it for good article status (especially since it was delisted about a decade ago, and the concerns from that time look to have been well-addressed), but before I do that I'd like to first get suggestions on improvement. In particular I was wondering if the biographical sections were of sufficient length and depth.
Thanks, KilimAnnejaro (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm don't know enough about Lewis to comment on the biographical content, but referencing is an area that still needs some work as the style is inconsistent.
- The notes section contains a mix of short footnotes and full citations, and the references section has a mix of book and other sources. There are several options here – such as changing all of the notes section to short footnotes, but I suggest it would be fine if the notes section contained short refs for books and full citations for non-book sources, and if the references section only listed books (or sources long enough to require page numbers). If the non-book sources (eg 84. Tonkin) did not use short footnotes it would stop them from being incorrectly tagged for page needed.
- It is not clear why there are several lists of books, does there need to be a separate section for secondary sources, some of which are cited and others not – the contents of this section could be listed as either references or further reading.
- Other issues are that some sources lack page numbers, others omit ref tags (Kelly and Guthmann), and the IMDb citations should be replaced with better sources if possible.
- Also you may want to look at the quantity and spacing of the images. - EdwardUK (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)