Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia/archive5
Wikipedia[edit]
- 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 July 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has serious potential to become Featured again, and a peer review would help confirm/deny/prepare for this.
Thanks, Cybercobra (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've planning to make some major revisions, but I never got to do it. (My user page contains links to academic papers or websites that might be used as references.) Here are few changes that must be made:
- Expand the cultural impacts of Wikipedia in the lead (in the context of web 2.0, crowdsourcing, all jazzs.)
- Discuss the roles of Jimmy Wales; e.g., how much authority does he have?
- Epistemology of Wikipedia [1]
- Discuss how Wikipedia has been killing traditional encyclopedias.
- Expand discussion of a war between deletionists and inclusionists
- Mention paid edits
- Overall, the sections on reliability and community need more refinement. For example, the reliability section contains somehow lengthly quotes, which are not particularly significant nor illuminating. -- Taku (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]
- I've been looking it over and find so many weasel word, POV, glitches, etc., that I can't state an opinion without trying to fix it. It really needs a good house-cleaning. I have no idea what forking is supposed to mean (Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control...). It's a forking mystery. Hope you and other involved editors will have a fresh-eyed look.
- Regards content and sourcing, the article looks pretty wonderful. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Fork" as in Fork (software development). Term is now wikilinked for glossary purposes. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Regards content and sourcing, the article looks pretty wonderful. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- The article could do with some discussion of Wikipedia's style (fact-driven, informative, slightly dry), and perhaps a little toning down of the Wikipedia-is-wonderful POV. (Any chance of a review in return of the h2g2 article?) AlexAshman (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)