Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Danny Casolaro
Hi. I requested this peer review because I rewrote this article a month or so ago. Although it was well-written prior to my endeavors, it contained in-line citations such as this:
Danny Casolaro was a [[freelance writer]] who committed [[suicide]] one day (Ridgeway and Vaughan p. 37) in [[Room]] 517 (Corn p. 517) at the [[Sheraton Inn]] (C.D. Seltzer ppg. 511-12) in [[Martinsburg]],[[West Virginia]].
Because the article looked like a Christmas tree of "overlinking" and in-line citations, I determined that it needed my input. The result now is ready for a peer review.
I would like the article to be reviewed by reviewers who will show an interest in moving the article along a path towards becoming a Featured Article. This, of course, will mean following ALL REFERENCE MATERIALS, evaluating ALL crosslinking throughout Wikipedia without passing subjective opinion on whether or not "the conspiracy" is, or isn't.
The fact of the matter is: The Story of Danny Casolaro and Inslaw and Michael Riconosciuto from 1980 to 2001 engulfed a great deal of historical, U.S. events. There is even suggestion that this story involves 9/11 and Osama Bin Laden. Consequently, due to these elements of history, I believe that it is essential that an article on Danny Casolaro reads well, is referenced well, and presents whatever facts are facts.
There is a comment on the talkpage that the section "Remaining questions and allegations" is silly.
I do not agree with the writer; that kind of review is NOT what I look for.
I look for the kind of review that realizes that those remaining questions and allegations are factual, open-ended details of Casolaro's life which remain troubling, and are therefore an intregal part of a Danny Casolaro article.
My major concern is whether or not this article is an encyclopedic article. In my opinion, it may be little more than mainstream background detailing the final days of Danny Casolaro's life.
Thanks for reading me this far.
Incidentally, if you check the History on this article, it has seen very little interest since its beginning. I stumbled upon it myself. I am glad that I did. The complete story (Danny et al) is fascinating when someone weeds through the details separating facts from repetitive speculation . Hag2 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Update This article has been sitting here too long without comment. Surely someone could read a bit, and then say "This article stinks." At least, that's a review. *smile* Hag2 (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Javascript review
editThe following suggestions were generated with the aid of a semi-automatic javascript program, which highlights minor issues of style.
- There are very few links in the article. Consider adding more per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
Resolved- If this article is about a person, consider adding
{{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}}along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Resolved- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The First Suicide Verdict==, it should be changed to ==First Suicide Verdict==.[?]
Resolved- "Michael Riconosciuto (subsection: Further Reading); i.e. O'Meara, Kelly Patricia; PROMIS: A Tale of Intrigue, Parts I, II, III, IV." Either just list O'Meara in the "Further reading" section or just link to Riconosciuto.
ResolvedThanks, DrKiernan (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! DrKiernan, I have read through the various data-remarks provided by the javascript, and will make the suggested alterations soon. Hopefully you have read through the article to its conclusion? Do you feel that it is encyclopedic? My personal opinion is that it is borderline, and perhaps just general, mainstream "article interest"—though the original author (or authors) does seem to handle the volume of information well. Hag2 (talk)