Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive2

Dan Savage bibliography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Note: Joint collaboration with The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), my list mentor for this quality improvement effort.

I modeled this list after WP:FL quality page, George Orwell bibliography.

Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-feedback I know how hard it is to work a lot on an article (or list) and beg for feedback and then not get it. It's frustrating. I don't have anything to add substantial, though. Good job, Cirt. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very very much for the kind words, I really appreciate it. This is a good form of feedback, however, acknowledging the quality improvement efforts that have been put into this particular project. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment I found it interesting and thorough. The one thing that did stick out to me was the space that the ISBN, OCLC and LCCN numbers took in the tables they were present in. Putting those in separate columns as you did is certainly logical, but I can't help but wonder if there's a way of reorganizing and/or reformatting them that would decrease their emphasis. Some options include removing the "ISBN", etc., from the column values, merging the three columns into a single column for identifiers, or perhaps something I hadn't considered. Anyway, a thought. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the acknowledgement that it's thorough and interesting. I think your suggestion of the option to make them all just in one column "Identifiers" is the best one, I'll work on implementing that. — Cirt (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've implemented the helpful recommendations by Joe Decker (talk · contribs), above. Thanks again, good ideas, — Cirt (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review text per "automated tips" from User:AndyZ/peerreviewer:

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. — Cirt (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:LEAD, lede/intro sect is of appropriate length as it summarizes the entirety of the page.
I've checked usage of the contractions, "Don't", in the page, and they are only used in direct quotations or article titles, so this checks out okay.
Done some copyediting per suggestions above, and checked over the relevant criterion.

— Cirt (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]