Wikipedia:Peer review/Hugo Chávez/archive1

Hugo Chávez

I stumbled across this article while looking through Genetic engineering. We need information about the chronological flow, comprehensiveness of the footnotes, sources, and references. We also need information on the biographical and methodological considerations:

Should the article's flow be strictly chronological, more chronological than it is now, or less ...
Should certain other sections or contents be moved out to daughter articles ...
We need to know how this article compares with respect to the Margaret Thatcher and Noam Chomsky articles ...

We are putting it on the peer review roster for due diligence purposes, before placement on the FAC list. Absolutely all manner of comments from anyone and everyone are welcome. Saravask 06:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where should the comments go. Right here in this same page, or here: Featured article candidates/Hugo Chávez. Please clarify. I certainly will comment. --Anagnorisis 03:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion, Anagnorisis. This article will not be put up for FAC for several days (until a peer review or two are completed). Just put your comments here. I removed the confusing and inappropriate FAC template that I stupidly put up from the talk page. Thanks. Saravask 08:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is comprehensive, but there are several formatting issues that will need to be addressed.

The lead is too long- aim for 3 paragraphs that summarise the content of the article
I think that the internal links to sections within the article make the text harder to read. I have not seen a system like this used in any featured article.
All html links used as references should be listed in the references, please don't pipe links to external websites use a footnote instead.
The text in the election results tables is too small to comfortably read.
Please include some summary text in the cabinet and critisisms sections so that these sections are not empty.
For all fair use images, plesase replace with the {{Non-free fair use in}} template and provide a fair use rationale, see Wikipedia:Image description page for instructions. (This seems to have been done for some, but not all fair use images).

--nixie 05:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Now that I see it, you are absolutely right about the excessively long leads. I first saw the internal links in the Christopher Colombus article, but yes, it is not featured, and they will be removed. The references section will be built up with the HTML links. I will look into the images. Thanks again. The Cabinet and Criticisms sections will include summary-style overviews, like you pointed out. Thanks again. And if there are any articles anyone would like me to comment on, I'd be happy to return the favor. Saravask 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie, I just removed two paragraphs from the lead, thus making it have the three paragraphs that you wanted. I also commented out all the internal links, and they will probably be worked into wikilinks or deleted outright. I am now going to switch the image descriptions. Thanks for your good ideas and policies. Saravask 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just increased the font size in all the election box templates. Thanks for the suggestion. Saravask 08:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Saravask, the changes have improved the readability of the article significantly. Let me know when you put the last two summary sections in and I will have another read through and copyedit.--nixie 23:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in the short summary sections that you requested. I also fixed, clarifed rationale for, or removed all problem and unsourced images. I'm now starting to convert all piped links into proper ref/note format. Thanks again. Saravask 23:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite massive at 62kb, are there any summrary sections that could be further summarised? I think presidency, human rights and foreign policy are potentially good candidates for getting the article to a more managable size.--nixie 00:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. you are correct. It seems that the average FA article size is around 50 kilobytes (the Albert Einstein article is only 48 kb) Today, I'll shorten the sections you pointed out above. Saravask 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just shortened the "Foreign Policy" section by half. More of the suggested summarizations are in progress ... Saravask 00:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]