Wikipedia:Peer review/MIKE2.0 Methodology/archive1

MIKE2.0 Methodology

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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback on how to improve it from a wider audience and ultimately write a better article.

Thanks, Sean.mcclowry (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I have not heard of this before - the article does a decent job of letting the reader know MIKE2.0 is, but needs some work to get to GA or especially FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

This needs more references, for example the "Information Governance" section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Refs that are here are mostly from the organization behind MIKE2.0 itself - the article needs more independent third-party sources. See WP:RS
Per WP:CITE references come directly AFTER punctuation without a space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Per WP:HEAD the headers are not capitalized correctly - "Information Governance" should just be "Information governance" for example. Generally short headers are to be preferred to long ones, so "Impact on the Information Management Community" could perhaps just be "Impact" (I don't expect it to have much impact elsewhere). Similarly "Key Concepts of MIKE2.0" should just be "Key concepts" (the reader already knows it is about MIKE2.0)
Currently the "Criticisms of the Approach" section is only the header and needs text (or the header should be removed). If it is expanded, how about just "Criticisms" as a header?
Image licenses appear to be incorrect in at least some cases - for example, File:Mike2 core solutions.jpg is part of a screenshot of this web page. As such I think it needs a free software license like File:Mike2 main page.jpg has.
On closer inspection of the MIKE2.0 page for File:Mike2 core solutions.jpg (see above) I see that a user with the same (Sean McClowry) is the author of this diagram for MIKE2.0. As such it appears that you may have a conflict of interest and should be very careful editing this page - as the COI page says Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.
The writing of the article needs to be more encyclopedic - for example the article is very list-y currently (including bullet points in the lead, which seems to go against the spirit of WP:LEAD). I would convert as many of the lists to prose as possible to improve readability.
I would also try to get rid of the short (one or two sentence) paragraphs by either combining them with others or perhaps expanding them - this should also improve flow and readability.
Things like "In summary" in the lead are also not very encyclopedic - this reads in places like a promotional / introductory PowerPoint about MIKE2.0 was converted to a Wikipedia article.
As noted, the article now tries to expalin what it is about / what it does and how it does it. I would add a section on the history and development of this. How about the busines model (what are "sales" like / who uses this?). Also are there any critical reviews of the software / system?
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on computing and OpenBSD might be a useful model - note that it is an older featured article and standards have gotten tighter since it was promoted to FA.

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). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean responds: Thanks for you comments Ruhrfisch, a number of good ones here. You are right, there are some non-encylopedic phrases in here. As well, I am very close to the MIKE2.0 approach so I don't want to do write too much of the content here ... but I will make make changes inline with some of your comments as I think it will improve the approach for the community. I will also add some more external links that reference the approach. --Sean.mcclowry (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]