Wikipedia:Peer review/World Science Festival/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 October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently been named a good article, and I'd like to put it up as an FA candidate. In preparation, I'd like to put it up for peer review – any and all feedback, whether on the writing or on the content, is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks, Markus Poessel (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Awadewit
[edit]What a change from general relativity! :) I did a little copyediting. Perhaps one more sweep would tighten things up even further.
The inaugural festival took place from May 28 to June 1, 2008, the first instance of what is planned as an annual event. - There is some redundancy here, with "inaugural" and "first instance".
- OK, I changed that. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
the two decided that a similar festival in New York City would be a worthwhile science communication project - "science communication project" is a bit vague
- That sentence was a hard one for me. Somehow, it either comes out too much like festival PR copy, or awkward like this. I've given it another try; please take a look. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Greene serves as the foundation's chairman; on the board of directors, he is joined by Alan Alda, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger, the foundation's president Judith Cox, Tracy Day as the festival's Executive Director, and New York University president John Sexton. - This sentence is awkward - it lacks parallel structure.
- OK, I've changed it. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of "Festival events" becomes a bit listy at the end - is listing all of the names of those scientists without any context really necessary?
- I'm not sure - my main reasons that all those names have wikilinks, and I'm all for cross-linking Wikipedia as densely as possible. I've de-listified some of the events, and left some names out. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Much better. Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to make sure we are being vigilant - was there any criticism of the festival?
- All reviews by reliable sources that I'm aware of are on this page. The one that has some worries about science elitism and boosterism is the SciAm blog entry from April 3, long before the festival. The published reviews from people who actually saw the festival were all positive. The closest they come to criticism is mention of rumors of instances of organizational turmoil before the festival. Should the critical reception get a section of its own? My worry is that such a section, if praise and criticism were represented in faithful proportions, would look too much like advertising. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- A little reception section might be a good idea. It is worth pointing out that the reviews of the festival were overwhelming positive. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK - I'm away for the Columbus Day week-end, but I'll get on to it on Tuesday. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's now a smallish "reception" section, which includes the cautious remarks about organizational glitches featuring in some of the articles. Markus Poessel (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think that is excellent. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Great - looks like this review is done, then. Thanks! Back to Jane Austen. Markus Poessel (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
My roommate went to the festival - he said nearly everything was sold out. Bigger next year? Awadewit (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Probably not much bigger next year. And, in fact, all events were sold out in 2008. Many thanks for your review! Markus Poessel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)