Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of vegetarians/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

List of vegetarians

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FL. It has the hugest list of references in town, and it would be great to be an FL, though it's a numbered list. My too biggest concerns are: 1) it runs incredibly slowly, even in Google Chrome and more so in IE and 2) its citation format.

Thanks, Kayau Voting IS evil 13:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Runs well on both Chrome and Safari. Citations seem fine, though I question why the notes use page number, and not some other means to distinguish them, like "a", "AA", "i."? Obviously, in the note, the page number(s) should be present.Abebenjoe (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like a pretty complicated problem to solve, since it might be hard to find where the ref's text is. By the way, if it runs well on Chrome then perhaps it's my internet connexion. But, it runs even slower on IE, so it's still too difficult to run on IE (IE7, at least.) Kayau Voting IS evil 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is certainly an ambitious undertaking, and it might compete for the "largest number of citations on Wikipedia" if there were such a thing. However, it's not nearly ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

  • I've never seen this particular way of designating page numbers in the in-line superscript instead of in the Reference section. I'm not sure the meaning of the numbers will be clear to most readers; it's not obvious, for example, which citation the page numbers refer to. More familiar would be to list the longer works that are referenced multiple times by creating a "Works cited" list that includes the complete bibliographical information and then using a short in-line reference between a pair of ref tags; e.g. <ref>Coetzee, pp. 63–65</ref>. See Frank Dekum for an example of what a "Works cited" list looks like and how it relates to the short-form citations.
  • Would it be helpful to add a brief definition of "vegetarian" and a brief definition of "vegan" to the lead?
  • I don't think the color coding is very helpful because the colors are arbitrarily associated with different groups of people rather than having an intuitive relationship. Until a reader memorizes the key, he or she has to keep scrolling back to the key at the top to see what the colors represent, and this is annoying. Would it be better to eliminate the key and simply add (author) or (scientist) or whatever after each person's name? Then, for example, "Pamela Anderson" could become "Pamela Anderson (actress)". This way of listing would have the added advantage of being more precise than the key, which in essence says "Pamela Anderson (film, stage, TV, or radio person)".
  • The 607 citations pose special problems in addition to WP:Linkrot. The biggest problem is that many of the 607 citations are malformed or incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found. Another problem is that some of the cited sources may not satisfy WP:RS. What, for instance, makes citation 18's vegetarianteen.com reliable?
  • At 144 kilobytes, the page is slow to load. You might consider splitting the vegans off into a secondary list or doing something else to ease the navigation problems inherent in such a long article.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that the images need alt text and that something like 20 of the links in the citations are dead. WP:ALT has details about how to write alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The dead links will need to be fixed or replaced to pass FLC.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I'll fix the linkrot as soon as I can - it's not that difficult, anyway - and the definition too. (Means one more ref. Mmmm...) For the first point, well, to be honest, me neither. When I was back from my WikiBreak, it was just, er, like this. :) As for the slow to load, please see the last section of Talk:List of vegans. Again, thanks! Kayau Voting IS evil 23:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850 comments

  • {{Rp}} is well used and documented at Wikipedia:Footnotes
  • The color coding just doesn't work for me. The number of colors mean they are not memorable— you have to keep switching up to the legend to figure out what they mean.
  • The use of {{legend}} makes the names small and the template was not intended for lists. Consider using {{mem}}— custom variants can be requested on the talk page
  • FL should include a synopsis overview of each entry, including notability. See List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents) for an example

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment

  • Thanks Gadget850. I don't recall seeing {{Rp}} in action before, but you are right. There's more than one way to the woods, as they say. I'd like this arrangement better if a colon appeared between the preceding note number and the page numbers so that it would be more obvious that the page numbers were connected to that note number and not the following note number; e.g. [8]:(pp63-65)[9]. I guess the brackets serve the same purpose, but the brackets at this level of magnification are hard to distinguish from parentheses. Using {{legend}} in the citations may be making the brackets smaller than normal; I'm not sure, having never used this particular template. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_vegetarians/archive1&oldid=1089814027"