Wikipedia:Peer review/Esperanto/archive2
Esperanto[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 June 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the most important article for the Esperanto task force, whose ultimate goal is the elevation of this article to Featured Article status. This article has been peer reviewed before, as well as being a Featured Article candidate (not promoted), and reviewed for Good Articles status four times (listed twice, delisted twice; it is currently a delisted Good Article). Anyway, the long and short of the situation is that this article is a veteran of these processes, so I would like to request reviewers to be as critical and demanding as possible because I envision an application for Featured Article status shortly after the conclusion of this review. That said, please judge it based on Wikipedia's Featured Article criteria. If you believe this article is nowhere near being ready for becoming a Featured Article candidate, please let me know. I will greatly appreciate any and all help on this peer review.
Thanks, TFCforever (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just added a quick sentence on what the 'Ido reform' actually means, because there's a tendency to forget when writing an article that most people will come in knowing absolutely nothing about not only the history, but what an IAL is and why they've been created. For example the very first sentence (and this is exactly the same as the comments I got when I submitted Ido for a review): what's an international auxiliary language? What does that do? "Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy and flexible language that would serve as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding." <-- this explains what it does, but doesn't really tie it in to an international auxiliary language, and a person who doesn't know anything about the subject might not catch on that the third sentence is actually explaining the first one in greater detail. Mithridates (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mithridates. I really appreciate your help. By the way, what are your general impressions of the article? I'm trying to get some opinions from people who have read it, especially concerning whether or not it is close to being Featured Article material, or at least worthy of being nominated as a candidate for FA status. Thanks! TFCforever (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)