Wikipedia:Peer review/Meg White/archive1

Meg White

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I working on getting all the White Stripes related articles at least to good article quality. I realize this article is not quite there, but I've made strides to add sources and flesh out the complete story of her career, and since I am pretty much the only editor working on the article (other than the occasional bot) I would like a second (third, fourth...) set of eyes to weigh in on weak areas.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. Checklinks tool shows a few problems throughout with dead links and slow links. I strongly suggest archiving as many as possible with added parameters archiveurl= and archivedate= with Internet Archive links.
3. Per WP:LEAD, consider expanding the lede intro sect, (four paragraphs), so it may function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Specifically, 2nd and 4th paragraphs are a bit skimpy.
4. 3 total images used in article, those will require an image review at either WP:GAN or WP:FAC, suggest you go over all those image pages and make sure all fields are filled in and all licensing checks out okay.
5. Plot summary looks a tad bit skimpy, could be expanded a bit more, perhaps one more paragraph.
6. A few one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs throughout, consider expanding and/or merging them up.
7. References sect combines both harv citation notes and full references in same sect. Recommend splitting into 2 sects, Notes and then References, per models at WP:FAs including: The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa.
8. I see two citation needed tags in article.
9. 6th paragraph of The White Stripes sect has uncited sentence at end of paragraph, as well as the citation needed tag.
10. Other work sect has lots of uncited sentences and facts with no sources cited.
11. Personal life sect has uncited material in 1st paragraph of sect.
12. Strongly recommend removing quote box from Personal life sect -- they don't like those at WP:FAC.
13. Equipment sect, suggest blending into main article body text in chronological order instead of in this sect.
14. Equipment sect, 1st paragraph in this sect has lots of uncited material and facts with no sources cited.
15. Awards and nominations -- BIG PROBLEM HERE. This entire sect is unsourced at present.
16. NOTE: Please respond, below all my comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Hope that's helpful, and good luck! — Cirt (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)