Wikipedia:Peer review/Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham/archive1
Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because: It was a pretty basic start-class article originally, but I have substantially expanded (x4, I think) and thoroughly sourced it, as well as providing more sections and images, bibliog, etc. For the purpose of GA or beyond, hopefully. Many thanks, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments
- Not sure I see the value in having full bibliographic details in both References and Bibliography - usually we either see short cites in the former and full in the latter, or full cites in the former and no latter section.
- Beyond that, you've got two distinct citation styles going on plus a few link-only refs - suggest making consistent
- Rather than fixed image sizes, suggest using scaling - see WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments
- Why is the article here and at A-class review? I think it should be one or the other, not both. I also think this needs quite a bit of work....just mho, but there it is.... A lot of the issues would have been addressed at a GA review as well.....auntieruth (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntieruth55: Out of curiosity, since I am unfamiliar with the GA process, what issues are there in this article that the GA process would address? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- usually a lot of basic issues are covered at ga review. Photo licensing. Basic grammar and punctuation. Etc. Peer review is the next thing I'd do in place of ga. It is just that by skipping that step And putting it at both peer review and a class we duplicate our efforts. Just saying. You can do what you wish. I just think one or the other is appropriate. auntieruth (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Auntieruth55:Oh, this isn't my nom. I'm a reviewer. :-) I was just curious. I'm very surprised that a GA reviewer would look at photo licensing. [I have sworn never to do another GA review again, because everyone complained that I was too picky. They took it to the talk page of GAC, in fact.] And yes, I agree this nom is double-dipping in PR and A-class review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)