Wikipedia:Peer review/Binders full of women/archive1

Binders full of women

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at AfD, I feel it should be improved. It is reasonable controversial, as such I would like to bring it up to at least GA standards. A peer review from a non-involved editor will help in that process.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: When you say the article "failed" at AfD, what you mean is that the attempt to delete it failed. As a non-involved editor, I would say that the subject-matter is slightly amusing—all politicians speak clumsily at times, critics make a disproportionate response, and the fun often is seeing the hapless pol trying to squirm his/her way out of the fuss. However, in my view this "gaffe" ranks about 3 out of 10 in the scale of such things; I can think of many far worse instances of mis-speaking, by British as well as US politicians. A few years back one of our people inserted an unwanted "n" when he referred to "the cuts in the Defence Department".

I can offer a few suggestions for improving the article, but in all honesty it is hard to see so slight a matter ever becoming GA-worthy:

• The first of the two main sections is head "Meme". In what sense are you using the word "meme" here?

• An internet meme.Casprings (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Obama's quotation needs a source

• DoneCasprings (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Joel Mathis sentence could be expanded.

• After ready the source, I think the sentence should be removed

• The "Jeopardy" sentence is trivia, uncited, best removed.

• Removed

• The "MassGAP Response" sections looks like it could be expanded, given the number of sources you have cited this slim material to.

• All the sources say the same thing. I will bundle them. Casprings (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• What do the "further readings" articles add to what is already in the article? If they contain new information they could be used as sources; otherwise, why bother?

• RemovedCasprings (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are format errors in the references. For example, retrieval dates ought to be in a single format. Titles of journals and newspapers should be italicised.

Not much else I can suggest. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)