I've been working on this one article on Ernest Emerson for a bit and feel it's time to have it reviewed. I have more pictures enroute...just need some thoughts or areas for improvement, one reader thought it may be too technical one other very negative editor called it "crap". I'd like to see this as a featured article someday!

Thanks --Mike Searson 22:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Seven references for a one-sentence lead? (Please see WP:LEAD.) Sandy (Talk) 01:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page noincluded, and why isn't it shown as a link on the talk page of the article? The peer review should be linked on the article talk page.

Allright, I found the link - darn stupid talk page templates, cluttering up the page, and you have to hit show to know it's there - that's not good. Sandy (Talk) 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses from my talk page:

I understand the problem, Mike - the other editor was saying that the article didn't establish notability, or more specifically, bio notability - you should carefully read those two pages, as any editor can put an article up for WP:Prod or WP:AfD if notability isn't established in the article. Some of your sources aren't complete, and some of them may fail notability. So, while we're on your sources, they should all include author, article title, and publication date, when available - and they should be correctly formatted and in a consistent style throughout the article. Looking at the six sources you used in the lead - and showing you how to correctly format them (if there is no author, you can delete, but we must have article name and pub date):

• Author last name, author first name. "Article title". Knives Illustrated, June 1994.
• Author last name, author first name. "The Hottest Grind of All". Blade Magazine, January 1998.
• Combs, Roger. "Ernest Emerson". Knives Illustrated, April 2004.
• Ewing, Dexter. "Stand and Salute the CQC7". Knives Annual, 2006.
• Ewing, Dexter. "Rock-Star Knifemakers Part 1". Blade Magazine, January 2006.
• Nielsen, Eugene. "Emerson Combat Karambit". SWAT Magazine, March 2006.

The next question is whether you need these sources in the lead - the answer is no. Pls have a look at WP:LEAD for guidance on what the lead should be/do. Extraordinary facts are often sourced in the lead, but generally, the lead is a summary of facts already sourced elsewhere in the article. Seeing six sources on one statement in the lead is highly unusual and unnecessary. If you feel you must have one source in the lead to establish notability, I found one for you that should work (you can edit my page and edit copy, edit paste these sources into ref tags in your article):

• Cover, Pat. "Strike Force!" American Handgunner, January 2000. Available at findarticles.com, Retrieved on December 29, 2006.

I see you've used that source, but not formatted it correctly. The statements in that source - which could be quoted - establish notability ("sets the standard for combat folders", "edged weapons guru", and "makes the most sought after custom knives in the tactical world" are certainly enough to establish notability) - that one source could be used in your lead (and your lead needs to be expanded to meet WP:LEAD). You can remove the other sources from your lead, and use them in the article where necessary.

I also see you haven't learned how to use named refs when you refer to the same ref more than once. You name the ref on its first occurrence, and then just refer to that name on subsequent occurrences, so that all of those footnotes summarize into one line - you can read about that on WP:FN - let me know if you need help.

Another thing - don't use Ibid in Wiki - if another editor in the future inserts new text in between, ibid becomes invalidated - use named refs instead, to make all instances of one source point to the same line.

Also, you have a large number of blue links that should be expanded correctly in your footnotes. For example:

• Soldier of Fortune Magazine July,1997

should be:

• Waterman, Steve. "Brown Water to Silver Screen: Story & Photos". Soldier of Fortune Magazine, July 1997. Available at stevenlwaterman.com, Retrieved on December 29, 2006.

You have to say where you got it, since it's not from Solder of Fortune magazine - which raises another issue - it's a copyright violation. IF the link were actually to the Soldier of Fortune article, you would just include the link as the article title, rather than adding it at the end of the ref.

Other things you need to do:

• All book sources need page numbers. They should also be correctly formatted:
  • Wynne, Marcus. Brothers in Arms (2004), Publishing place: publisher name. ISBN 0765346915
• Examples of ref that needs work:
  • Blade Magazine February, 1998 (needs author and article name, and correct formatting) - do this throughout.
• Now, a huge pet peeve (read WP:NOT): Wikipedia is not a blog and not a webpage - it's an encyclopedia. We don't link to external websites except in references, External links, and few other places. External jumps (imbedded links) should be removed from the text. You can do that by converting those statements to referenced statements, sourced to the external site, or by writing the Wikipedia article about the external site, linking to it, and including the external website on that article. Examples of imbedded links in your article that need to be eliminated:
• Night of the Running Man: Scott Glenn's character carried a whitehandled one of a kind Emerson folding tanto. (Remove the IMDb link from the text - use it as a reference to the statement instead.)
• (ugh) In addition to the individual Martial Arts Instructor Rankings listed above, Mr Emerson's teaching credentials include, California POST(Peace Officer Standards & Training) Instructor,Gunsite instructor, Hand-to-hand Combat Instructor for H&K Defense Group, and Director of the Combat Research and Development Group. Mr Emerson is also an expert witness for the Los Angeles Prosecuting Attorney's Office and has been consulted as a technical advisor to various television and movie productions, including National Geographic.^[1]
  • The source proving that he has these credentials should be stevenlwaterman.com - if Waterman doesn't source these claims, they need a source, and linking to the websites which explain what those credentials are isn't a source. Those external jumps don't belong in the article - if you want to explain what POST is, you can either write the Wiki article and link to it, or include information about what that is in a footnote, referencing the site there - but those external jumps don't belong in the article. (Notice some copyedit needs in that section as well - take care of missing spaces, etc.) You have external jumps throughout.

Hope this helps get you going. Sandy (Talk) 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, this is good. I did not start out to write this article, I found it by accident and tried to fix it. Eventually rewriting it. An editor with an agenda had me source every other sentence and without multiple sources was accusing me of not being neutral, sycophantic, etc.

It seemed as if it took 6 sources in one sentence to establish to this naysayer that Mr Emerson was who he claims he is!

I will work on this more today and use the guidelines you've given me for source formatting. I must have looked at them on another article and did it that way!

I don't know if I'm qualified enough to write the POST article, but maybe I'll try the Gunsite and HK ones.

Thanks again for your help! --Mike Searson 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck - you've got a fine start ! Sandy (Talk) 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice start and nice material, but, in order to become FA or at leat GA, this article needs a lot of work and a lot of wikifation. This is my review:

• The lead does not constitute a comprehensive summary of the article. Please read carefully WP:LEAD and fix accordingly your lead.
• The knife photos are miniscule! Why? IMO they should be a bit bigger, but again, other editors may have a different opinion.
• "Although Emerson began his martial arts training at the age of 16 in Korean Judo; he continued his study of the martial arts while attending the University of Wisconsin." Maybe , instead of ; here?
• The article flow is quite often bad. These two phrases are a good example:"He graduated with degrees in Physical Education and World History. He moved to Southern California for the sole purpose of studying martial arts." You see, often a word can make the difference: "He graduated with degrees in Physical Education and World History. He then moved to Southern California for the sole purpose of studying martial arts." This link could be helpful (here).
• "Background" could be split in two sections which will contain more personal and career infos (if you can find any more): "Early life" (or "Family") and "Backgroung".
• Try to avoid the stubby one-sentence paragraphs. They are bad both for the prose and the layout.
• Try not to have citations in a row like [1][2] or [1][2][3]. There are ways to merge more than one citations in one. Check, for example, Tourette Syndrome or Battle of Edson's Ridge or an article I rewrote: El Greco.
• Try to have the inline citations at the end of the sentence and not if the middle. Place them in the middle only if it is absolutely necessary for reasons of emphasis.
• "First knife-Custom knifemaking-Pre tactical models" are three one after the other stubby sections. Try to avoid them by mergers or expansions.
• I now saw that your article has 20 sections! This is not good structure. Try to organize your article with not-stubby sections, sub-sections and sub-sub-sections if necessary.
• In "Specwar Knives" I see two stubby paragraphs.
• "Emerson Knives, Inc" is stubby. "Semi retirement from custom knifemaking" as well. All these stubby sections do not help the reader: they continuously interrupt the article flow and impede the reader from getting the general idea about what he reads and from properly following the story.
• "Mr Emerson's teaching credentials". Why Mr Emerson here and Emerson elsewhere? Emerson everywhere. No reason to use Mr. I fixed some of these.
• "Author" is stubby. If the content of these articles is important, expand. Otherwise merge or think if the content of this section is necessary.
• "Knives in Books" has only stubby paragraphs.
• Films and television shows need italics. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting).
• Notes 4, 5, 10, 11, 18 are empty. What is wrong there. Formatting and layout problems.
• In the books you don't mention page and publisher. For a ready format for books, check Template:Cite book. For articles in journals Template:Cite journal. For webs Template:Cite web or Template:cite news.

I suggest you make the necessary arrangements and you initiate a new peer-review. I think it is premature to go right now for GA.--Yannismarou 22:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll make the necesarry changes you mention. As far as the empty notes, I was told by a previous reviewer to format my notes in this manner as opposed to having the same source cited throughout...which is the preferred method of doing so?--Mike Searson 23:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Sandy told you to gather the same notes (with the same content I mean) together, so that they are grouped, and I agree. But I said another thing: The specific notes I mentioned have no content! They were empty! They said nothing. Now, I looked again at the article, and they look fine! You probably fixed them.--Yannismarou 09:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I was missing a character and I looked at some of your articles for help and found my mistake! Thanks! I've rewritten some of the prose, too. The tagging was getting in the way of my writing style. Thanks again for the help and constructive criticism. --Mike Searson 09:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]