Wikipedia:Peer review/Miley Cyrus/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be an FA in the future but it is not up to par right now.
Thanks, Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Right. It's clear that you're passionate about Miley Cyrus. I have given the article a brief skim. Comments:
- I have not much experience reviewing FA, nor in the review of individuals, however at first glance I can say this article appears thorough and well-cited with relevant images that are captioned well.
- I am not sure how FA will treat your activity requirements (I note you have recently become active after several years of inactivity) - I don't mean this in a negative way, only I note this was one of the first comments in the original FA nomination\
- I also would await the comments of Casliber (or consider posting at WP:FAN) for the opinion of an editor who actively participates in the FA process.
- Some statements have way too many citations. I would advise if possible to, when one sentence has 2-4 citations, whittle that down to one if possible. I feel this is probably the biggest blocking issue. When this is addressed (while you are addressing this it will also show recent edits on the article and your activity) I would test the waters and go for an FAN. Good luck! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Cas Liber
[edit]- For starters, there is an autobiography that is not used as a reference. This could be used for personal feelings and views, and would be more reliable than tabloids. If you have this book I suggest reading it and comparing it with the article.
- Also, some of these might be useful to look at and incorporate.
- Until these are looked at, there is no point really doing copyediting etc. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Casliber: I've read 'Miles to Go' a lot of times and have two copies (lol), but yeah from a glance everything in the article seems to be on par with the book. Will look into further comments a little while later.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- The other thing is the book might have some more detail or explanation about something. The article can be about 20% longer without being too long. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Casliber: I've read 'Miles to Go' a lot of times and have two copies (lol), but yeah from a glance everything in the article seems to be on par with the book. Will look into further comments a little while later.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)