Wikipedia:Peer review/Tom Thomson/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
Hi,
I've requested a peer review on the article for the Canadian artist Tom Thomson. I have been spending the past few months editing using my own personal library and have greatly expanded the page from Start-class to where it is now. With that said I realize it's getting a bit too long, and so I'm wondering about areas that I could cut back and potentially start sub-topics (more discussion regarding this is on the talk page). I'm also looking for comments about the general style and format of the article, given that it is essentially my first real attempt at writing a "good" article by myself. I have basically based the format on the page for Vincent van Gogh (which is a FA) figuring that I'll eventually hope to get this article to that point. Let me know what you think!
Thanks, Tkbrett (✉) 21:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comments by Catrìona
- Hello Tkbrett. This article overall looks well referenced and thorough. I'm not going to comment on the content ; it's not my area of expertise ; but here are some suggestions as far as the MOS goes. The lede is very long, especially the second paragraph. Technically it is within MOS:LEDE as only four paragraphs, but I'd recommend trying to cut it down a little. Also, you have some statements with four citations in a row. You should bundle them, remove the least reliable one, or move the citations closer to the content they support. Your next step after this PR closes is probably a Good Article nomination; the reviewer will have additional ideas for improvement and it would help your article get into tip top shape before you put it up for FAC. Good luck! Catrìona (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response, Catrìona! I've gone ahead with your suggestions and cut the lede back by 748 bytes as well as bundled instances of four or more bunched citations (I wasn't sure if I should do the same with instances of three citations in a row: WP:BUNDLING wasn't specific, so I've left them as is). Excited to proceed ahead! (This would be my first GA or FA!) Tkbrett (✉) 04:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, three is the usual limit for in a row citations - I should have been more explicit. I'm sorry I can't help more with the content of the article. Good luck! Catrìona (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)