Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed Stelmach/archive1

Ed Stelmach edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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 have no experience with the FA process, and this is one of the first articles I've written for which enough sourcing exists to get it to FA. I'm wondering, basically, how close the article is currently to being FAC-worthy, and what still needs to happen for it to get there. Of course, comments on other elements of the article are very much welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- The following web references are lacking publishers
  - Current ref 5 (Stalmach's legistlature biography)
  - Current ref 7 (Bill Status Report 23th...)
  - Current ref 9 (Minister making a U-turn on flawed...) also lacking last access date. Also it seems to require registration with a library?
  - Current ref 12 (Albertans Turf Five in Race...)
- I'm not familiar with http://www.albertasource.ca/aoe/ui/index.aspx? Is this considered a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

Article looks good overall, well referenced, decent images. Be careful to avoid jargon - MLA is wikilinked after his name in the lead sentence and included in a header but is never spelled out / explained - see WP:JARGON I also note that Legislative Assembly of Alberta is way overlinked in the article, 5 times plus the infobox and at least one ref
Per WP:MOS#Images Images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over, and faces should look into the page (so Image:Ed Stelmach luncheon.jpg should be left justified).
Third paragraph of lead is too short and begins awkwardly (Despite this...) similar sentences have been criticized of late at FAC. Get a copyedit from WP:PRV or asking an editor listed at WP:LOCE
Many of the subsections in Premier are only one paragraph long and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible.

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 _><>°^° 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]