Wikipedia:Peer review/Primary FRCA/archive1
- 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 June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have edited the Primary FRCA article into easy to read sections trying to match the sections given in Final FRCA which I have also edited. References have been added.
Thanks, Olimorgan
Ruhrfisch comments: A fairly short article - peer review is usually for more developed work, but here are some suggestions for improvement:
- A model article is often useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. ACT (examination) and SAT are both exam articles that are B class and may offer some ideas.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, for example ST3.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so include something for the sections on Syllabus, Form of the Examination, Marking Scheme, and Membership. Please see WP:LEAD
- The lead sentence should probably be something like The Primary Examination of the Diploma of Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (commonly known as the Primary FRCA) is ...[1]
- Avoid jargon - explain or remove it. So spell out MMC, GMS, MCQ, etc. the first time and put the abbreviation after in parentheses for reference and use it in subsequent mentions. See WP:JARGON
- Any chance for an image of any sort?
- Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they break up the flow of the article.
- Avoid bullet lists - convert to prose.
- Any reason why this article could not be combined (merged) with Final FRCA? Perhaps as "FRCA Examinations" with redirects from this and Final FRCA?
- What makes this topic notable - see WP:NN? Where are the independent third-party sources on it?
- 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
- Much of the article reads like a how to, not an encyclopedia article. See WP:NOT
- Article could use a copy edit to clean up / polish prose.
- Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I just have a few comments to add:
- When I compare this page to the Primary FRCA Guide, the latter seems much more comprehensive (albeit not encyclopedic). I'm sure you can find ways to further expand this article in a meaningful way.
- The language of the Entrance Requirements section seems much too terse. It also may be unclear that "pounds" is a monetary unit.
- I didn't know until I saw the "Marking Scheme" section that the test came in four quarters. Perhaps this could be expanded upon?
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)