Wikipedia:Peer review/Peter Jones (missionary)/archive1

Peter Jones (missionary)

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 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm kinda stuck on how to push forward. I hope to push it all the way to FA; as it stands, I think it teeters around good. However, only myself and one other editor (CJLippert) have made any substantive contributions to the article, and external eyes are desperately needed. What's missing? What's poorly formatted? What's unclear (this is especially troublesome with only two active editors.

Thanks, Wily D 18:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb comments

Here are two points I can think of at first glance:
- The subsection titles in the Youth section sound awkward. The section itself should be names Early life to stay in line with the majority of biographical articles.
- The article relies a bit too heavily on a single source, Donald B. Smith. Although I acknowledge that other sources may be hard to find, it would be a good idea to seek them.

--Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

Lead does not follow WP:LEAD. It should describe the importance of the person, his impact, etc., which i think is covered in later sections of the article, and it could have less detail about his birth and death (giving his death date twice in the intro!), which are covered in later sections. There is no mention of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd expeditions, Wesleyan vs. Methodist politics, in the intro. I've seen another reviewer comment, in other reviews, that his rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article may need fewer sections / headers too.
I think the subject is interesting but you could make it more clear to the average reader what is interesting about Peter Jones and his life. I certainly don't want to suggest that you overstate his importance or impact, and perhaps the main story line is that he had less impact than could have been hoped for, but his importance is not made clear in the intro and in the article as a whole. You state "Jones did manage to obtain some concessions from various provincial governments, such as having control over the trust funds for the Mississaugas of Credit turned over to their chiefs, but he was never able to secure title deeds." What i don't understand is the importance of this failure, and whether this was a tragedy, or how much of a tragedy this was, in the larger scheme of things. Or what would have been the downside, for others, if this had succeeded. I could imagine that he was one of few that tried, that almost succeeded in doing something important on moral, ethical, political grounds, etc. Did this failure on its own, or with other failures, lead to further tragedies, protests, etc. like Canadian native protests in the 1970's or so, which, sorry, i am only dimly aware of. Was the failure ever remedied? The title of a later section "Mississaugas obtain title deeds" sounds promising, but i am not clear in that section, much less in the intro, about whether things were resolved satisfactorily. I understand from that they got some land eventually, but it wasn't their own land, was it? (How was the land held, by the way, title to the entire tribe or split to individuals, in that semi-resolution?) Some more indications on how his actions fit in with the larger sweep of history, and some links to earlier and later history, in at least a "see also" way would help. Another theme that could be clarified and possibly be elevated is the Wesleyan vs. Methodist politics. He resigned from one church, could you explain more, and perhaps link to appropriate Wesleyan and Methodist history articles elsewhere in wikipedia, if there are such?
Perhaps you were shy to introduce any suggestions of "what might have been", if only he had lived. However, if others have speculated along those lines, you can fairly introduce such topics stating what reliable authorities have speculated, in my opinion. Wp:Be bold, and all that!

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). doncram (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]