Wikipedia:Peer review/Elias Porter/archive1

Elias Porter

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

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 am new to Wikipedia and want to be sure I have created a nuetral viewpoint article - a biography of Elias Porter with relevance in the field of Psychology.
The article could benefit from edits for clarity, redability, grammar etc.
I'm not sure where to draw the line with links to other topics (example: should "World War II" be a link?) and what the protocol is for multiple links of the same topic (example: Client-Centered Therapy is linked once in the text and once in the references section - but not in every occurence.
I wasn't sure whether "Relationship Awareness Theory" should be it's own heading because it was the culimination of his life work, or if it should fall under the "Significant Work and Contributions" heading.
Is it appropriate to add new topics for "Relationship Awareness Theory" (with more depth and references than his bio), Strength Deployment Inventory (a validated psychometric written by Porter), and Personal Strengths Publishing (the company he founded)? I see that other psychometric tests and theories and companies have thier own pages, some of which look like they have a marketing component, some of which appear to have a nuetral perspective.

Thanks, Tscud (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting and generally well-written article. I will try to answer your specific questions in order first, and then make some suggestions for improving the article itself:

The article seems relatively neutral to me - if you have not read WP:NPOV please do so. One possible area to make it more neutral would be to include more material written by reliable independent third-party sources on him. So it is OK to quote Porter himslef on his theories, but also try to find what others have written about them (and him) and include that too. See WP:RS for more on relaible sources.
A copyedit is always useful. One trick is to not work on the article for a week or so and then read it "fresh". Another is to read the article out loud - many rough spots become more obvious that way. You can also ask at WP:PRV for a copyedit.
Generally topics should be linked at most twice in an article - once in the lead and a second time in the body of the article. If you feel the Second World War is important to the article, link it. Typically avoid linking simple things like house or car. Full dates (day, month year) should always be linked as it makes them display according to the user's preferences.
For the last two questions, I would ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology for more knowledgable opinions. This would also be a good place to ask for more peer review comments.

Ruhrfisch comments on the article itself

A model article is useful - I looked at the Psychology WIkiproject article assessments and there are no GA or FA articles on psychologists. There are over 400 FA class biography articles at Category:FA-Class_biography_articles so I would look there and see what you can find that would be useful as a model for style, structurem, refs, etc.
PEr WP:LEAD the lead needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article.
The picture has the wrong license - since he has died it is WP:FAIR USE (impossible to make a new photo of him) and it is also impossible that the uploader made the picture of him in May 2008.
References come after pucntuation, so He completed his Masters work in 1938 at the University of Oregon[1], which documented... should be He completed his Masters work in 1938 at the University of Oregon,[1] which documented ... There are others that need to be fixed.
Per the WP:MOS headers should be capitalized like this "Career highlights". This "The more a theory is for people, rather than about people, the better it will serve people" has got to be the longest header I have ever seen - can it be shortened? It also sounds like a direct quote and should be cited as such.
Article needs more references - for example the Career Highlights section has zero refs, as does Entrepeneurship.
Some sections are quite short and break up the flow of the article - can they be combined with other sections or expanded?

Hope this helps, if you find it helpful please consider making comments at another peer review, especially one with no or minimal responses so far at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]