Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Jenner/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
it was suggested, following consideration of the Good Article process.
This is an article about an important thing, and person, who is interesting for a bit more than vaccination. It is beset by antivaccinationists, hence protection. It deserves to be good, and then labelled as good.
Thanks, Midgley (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, this would fail to meet the GA criteria.
- 1. Well-written. Mostly not bad, but the lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the main text. The layout could certainly be improved: too many very short or single-sentence paras and a lot of leaping from topic to topic (e.g., Jenner's nephew → Jenner marrying → Jenner graduating). Either linking these more smoothly or creating separate sections (e.g., 'early work', 'work on smallpox', 'personal life') is advisable. 'In popular culture' should be before 'Publications', although it could be cut as being trivia. Some of 'Monuments and buildings' can be cut.
- 2. Verifiable. Both the refs and further reading sections need to be standardised, and the latter sequenced alphabetically. In-line citing starts well but soon fades – the final four paras in 'Natural history, science and marriage' have none, and there is at least one direct quote that has no source.
- 3. Coverage. Patchy. e.g., what happened between 1773 and 1788? What did he do at St Andrews? Any info on his personality, work style, etc.?
- 4. Neutral. You may disagree with antivaccinationists, but if they have something relevant to say about Jenner, then it could be included, or at least the existence of any controversy should be noted.
- 5. Stable. The protection would need to be explained.
- 6. Images. Fine; I haven't checked the copyright, but they support the article content.
Overall: sort out the structure first, then gaps in content will be clearer and can be filled, plus linking improved. Then adjust the lead and sort out the refs and further reading. I hope that helps. EddieHugh (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)