Dynamic producer 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was once deleted for being a PR. I want it to sound less of a PR and more of an encyclopedic entry.
Thanks, Talentshout (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I removed much of the self-serving prose, took out unnecessary
<br />tags, and made some of the lists into prose. I noticed some reference links, which is a good start, but there's still more work needed.
- Consider finding some of the actual magazines they mention, or other third-party books and websites not affiliated with the group, to ensure that the article has reliable sources. Make sure that claims in the text are verifiable, and look for both positive and negative opinions of the group in those sources to keep a neutral point of view. As Gogo Dodo mentioned on your talk page, try reading other articles—featured or good ones, if possible—about similar groups, and model it after them. Thanks, --an odd name 01:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)