Isaac Asimov edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a featured article before, but it was demoted because it only had 12 citations. It now has 179, so I want to see if it's ready to be nominated for FA status again, or what other improvements would be advisable first.
Thanks, Richard75 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments from RL0919 edit
Not having enough citations would certainly be a barrier to FA status, but having a bunch isn't enough by itself. I haven't read it from end to end, but some things I noticed skimming:
- Two sections are headlined by cleanup banners. That's an immediate fail at GA, much less FA.
- The sources that are provided include some that probably don't meet WP:RS (asimovonline.com, for example), and a lot (about half) of the citations are to Asimov's own writings. FA reviewers will want to see independent secondary sources used whenever possible. There are several published books about him already listed under sources, so those are probably a good place to start.
- There is a great deal of inconsistency in citation styles. A consistent system will be needed for FA. I did a bit of cleanup on this, but there is more to do.
- I spotted several paragraphs of just one or two sentences. Typically that indicates a problem of choppy writing or unnecessary trivia.
- Speaking of trivia, the section on "Television, music, and film appearances" looks like a WP:TRIVIA list. Probably this should be rewritten as a narrative that highlights his most noteworthy appearances (based on those secondary sources mentioned above). Every specific time an author showed up on a talk show does not need to be listed in an encyclopedia article.
There are probably more details lurking in the text that I didn't read, but the obvious items above would be enough to block an FA. --RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)