Wikipedia:Peer review/Clarice Lispector/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've just completed a major revamping and would like to get any feedback about places where it might be expanded or reorganized.
Thanks, Eve.b.i (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement:
- The lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way - I think the article has too many subsections as it is, so perhaps work on the rest of the article and then on the lead.
- A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. There are many FAs on authors at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre that may be useful as models.
- There are a lot of peacock words and extraordinary claims in the lead and article - for example Acclaimed internationally... A legendary figure... renowned for ... her great personal beauty, and her eccentric personality ... one of the two most outstanding Brazilian prose writers of the twentieth century. See WP:PEACOCK
- Many paragraphs and sections are unreferenced - for example "The Ukraine" or "Belém do Pará" sections. This would be a big problem at GAN or FAC. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "extraordinary claims" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Many of the sections and paragraphs are very short - a few sentences - and this breaks up the flow of the article. I would combine or expand these short paragraphs and sections. Again looking at a model article for organization ideas might help in reducing the number of sections.
- Any sort of critical reception info that could be added?
- References need more detailed information - ISBNs for books for example.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a full review for you, but I wanted to reiterate Ruhrfisch's comments about the lede. See if you can get it up to three paragraphs, and work on the number of subsections throughout the whole article. Let me know if you need advice on anything specific. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)