Wikipedia:Peer review/Tim Conlon (artist)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review since it's a new unreviewed article and I'm in need of some additional general feedback.
Thanks, Cdematties (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Peer review is meant mainly for articles that are headed for GA or higher. This article is new and not yet well-developed. Even so, here are a few suggestions:
- The images are almost certainly violating copyright law. They come from the Smithsonian, as noted on the image license pages, but the Smithsonian terms of use suggest that they are not free to duplicate and distribute. The non-commercial restriction alone makes them not usable on Wikipedia, and it does not appear that the copyright holder has licensed them as CC-by-SA 3.0. They can't arbitrarily be licensed as CC-by-SA 3.0 by Wikipedia. WP:IUP explains Wikipedia's image use policies.
- The article as it stands reads more like a puff piece or vita for Conlon than a neutral biography. It would help to include what art critics have to say about Conlon's work instead of relying so much on what he has to say about himself. Instead of listing potential sources in "External links", use them as sources in the article and use them to find other sources.
- The direct quotations, amounting to roughly 150 words, are too much for such a short piece. It's generally better to paraphrase and to use direct quotations selectively.
- Direct links to external sites from within the text are a Manual of Style no-no; thus "blog" should not be linked to Conlon's blog. Instead, use an in-line citation.
- The citations are incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if those are known or can be found. It may be helpful to use the "cite" family of templates to create the citations. They can be found at WP:CIT. If you use them, don't mix them with other citation families. You can look at featured articles at WP:FA to see how other editors have dealt with art biographies; in edit mode, you can see how citations have been handled by various editors in these high-quality articles.
- Blogs, personal web pages, and many dot-coms are not reliable sources per WP:RS. How can we be sure that DCist.com, for example, is a reliable source? Much better would be to use the Washington Post, American Observer, and other publications with editorial staffs and a reputation for accuracy.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)