This peer review discussion has been closed.
- I've listed this article for peer review because it's been one month since a deletion discussion for the article was closed, as Keep.
- Since that time, the article has improved in quality to a point where it now cites twenty-six (26) references.
- An editor has raised the question of what else to do to further improve the page in quality to a point where it could be considered for WP:GA status.
- I thought that, especially with the prior various discussions in mind, it would be a good idea, first, to bring the article to a Peer Review to solicit additional input from the community and have a discussion about ideas for further quality improvement.
Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Kaldari
A few suggestions...
- Expand the lead. Right now it is only a single sentence and doesn't cover all the sections of the article.
- "Unlike other versions of the self based on sensibility, it was not predicated upon femininity." This sentence is a bit confusing. It sounds like it's saying that all constructions of the self prior to late eighteenth-century children's literature were predicated upon femininity, which seems unlikely. This is totally a guess, but I imagine what the paper actually argues is that late eighteenth-century children's literature was the first to offer female children a construction of the self that wasn't completely predicated upon femininity. That's just a guess though.
- "In 2009, Wadewitz began putting The New England Primer online..." What is The New England Primer?
- Combine the Climbing and Death sections.
Kaldari (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Kaldari, this is most helpful. I've read over all of the comments and suggestions by Kaldari, above, and I agree with all of the recommendations. — Cirt (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Agricola44
Unfortunately, this page continues to develop in the context of a shrine to Adrianne, much of it being WP:UNDUE. For example, there are large sections of text describing her academic career and individual works when she was only a post-doc and the aspect related to her death is sensationalized. Specifically, there now 27 sources, almost all of them obits or memorials directly related to her death (the remainders being Adrianne's own writings). I would caution against campaigning for GA, because if one reduces the sources to the few main obits (like the NYT) and scales back the text to appropriate weight, there would not be much left. I maintain now, as I did in the AfD, that this article should not be much more than a stub. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Thank you, Agricola44, for your participation in this peer review. I agree with some of your comments, specifically, that we should rely predominantly upon secondary sources as a way to give weight to various portions of material in the article as described in those sources, and let that be our guide going forwards for further improvement. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that there is no length requirement for GA articles. They are merely required to be "broad" in coverage. I agree that there is some content which may be UNDUE and could be trimmed without negatively affecting the article's quality, for example, the lengthy discussion of her dissertation. Kaldari (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Kaldari, I think that issue would be solved by re-evaluating references and then relying primarily upon secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]