This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the quality enough so that it can become a Featured Article. I'm open to any and all suggestions but some stuff I'd like to ask about/request:
- Personal life section: This was originally two smaller sections, with one of them opening the article and titled "Early life". But both were quite short, so I combined them. Does this seem ok?
- General copyediting/proofreading: It should be too bad, but everything can always be better. Thoughts?
- General structure regarding headings/subheadings: Does it seem ok/readable?
Thanks, Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- Current ref 36 is lacking a last access date.
- Otherwise the sources look good. You said you wished to go to FA with this, and I've checked over the sources like I would have at FAC. I did not read the prose or do any checking of the prose. 21:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good catch, fixed it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)
- Looks like the lead needs rewriting. It is disorganized and a bit too long, really. Try to make the paragraphs equal in length to improve flow/readability.
- Jack FM section is short.
- Doesn't seem to be any information about his earlier life (who was he born to, for example), childhood and education?
- Looks pretty good otherwise.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. I shortened the lead and moved some of the info to other sections, expended the Jack FM section, moved info about his early life to the lead. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)