Wikipedia:Peer review/Liberalism/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
In the last week, I have given this article a complete overhaul in a major push for the FA nomination. The article now contains 180 citations from 69 books, five (reputable) internet sources, and 1 academic journal. At 109 kb, it's fairly short for such a popular subject. I feel very confident that it meets all FA criteria. However, I know that it still needs a few finishing touches before I nominate it, like way more links and some copyediting.
I have an extensive history with featured articles, having single-handedly written and nominated five already. But this is the first time in four years that I'm trying to nominate a new one and I really would appreciate your strongest criticisms. Be brutal and deliberately scathing. I don't want to hear what you like or what you think I did well. I know all of that ready. I want you to hit hard and tell me what you think I did wrong. I want to be well-prepared for the FA nomination. Thank you in advance for your help!UberCryxic (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- No feedback here: a GA review might get the necessary attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment No substantial comment from me, but one incredibly small nitpick: we don't use ibid on wiki (it's especially troublesome on such a widely read article as this). See WP:IBID. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. I'll get on that.UberCryxic (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed.UberCryxic (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)