Wikipedia:Peer review/Mairéad Farrell/archive1

Mairéad Farrell edit

I have requested a peer review for this article as I feel that it has reached a sufficently stable point in its life style, although only a few editors have contributed content and comment (both positive and negative) thus far.GiollaUidir 01:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions:

GENERAL

The sections are far too short to merit their own section headers. Three of them are only one paragraph long. You don't need a TOC for an article of this length.
The paragraphs are not organized well. You have paragraphs consisting of a single sentence, for example. Each paragraph should introduce an assertion in a topic sentence and then expand or back up that assertion. I'd recommend removing your section headers and replacing them with topic sentences. Replace "Imprisonment(1976-1986)" with "During her incarceration between 1976 and 1988, Farrell agitated for prisoners' rights" (or maybe something a little more NPOV).
If you do keep the section headers (which I don't recommend), make the format consistent. Some have a space before the parenthetical dates and some don't.
Per WP:MOS, footnotes should go after the comma or period, not before.
Please create stubs for your red links.
In general, you've done a pretty good job of keeping NPOV, but double-check distinctions between "kill" and "murder," and consider whether your presentation at any point could be seen as favoring a pro-Republican or anti-Republican stance. On a topic as contentious as the IRA, it's especially important to avoid even the appearance of bias.
The sentences run on too long. The prose needs to be tightened throughout. Both of these, I suspect, result from the conversation style of the prose. A conversational style isn't necessarily bad, but try to keep it in check.
Avoid parenthetical expressions when possible. They disrupt flow. If the information is really important, discuss it in a separate sentence or paragraph.
Don't assume I know the context. Maybe I'm from another part of the world and barely know where Ireland is on a map, let along the history of conflict. Consider adding a "Historical background" section that briefly and VERY neutrally summarizes the IRA and Operation Flavius.

LEDE

The first sentence is far too long. It should say who she was and why she was notable, but I shouldn't run out of breath reading it. The phrase "at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea" in particular doesn't belong in the first sentence. I'd chop this into two, maybe even three sentences.
She is, she is, she was... This repeated used of the verb "to be" makes for a passive writing style. Instead of "She is one of the subjects of the Irish rebel song Gibraltar Three," how about "She helped inspire the Irish rebel song 'Gibraltar Three'"? Instead of "she was the leader of the women prisoners in Armagh Women's Prison," how about "she led the inmates in Armagh Women's Prison"? ("Women prisoners" is redundant, since you're about to specify "Armagh Women's Prison.")
"During the late 1970s - mid 1980s" reads awkwardly. Can you give exact or approximate dates instead, like "From 1978 through 1986" or "From approximately 1978 through 1986"?

EARLY LIFE

~~"Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland to an unremarkable middle class family": "unremarkable" feels POV. Either remove it or cite it.~~ Rephrased 15/6/2007
"(although her grandfather was an IRA member during the Irish War of Independence)": in general, avoid parenthetical expressions (see how disruptive this is?) because they disrupt flow. If it's important, give it its own sentence or even paragraph. If it's not important, leave it out.
"she left school at eighteen to work in an Insurance Office." Is this really part of her "early life"? I expect "early life" to be about childhood, not young adulthood.
"About this time she met a Provisional IRA Volunteer called Bobby Storey who persuaded her to join the IRA." "About this time" is redundant; since you're telling the story in a linear order, I would have assumed "about this time" unless you told me otherwise. How did she meet him? Was she already politically active, or was he a chance acquaintance at work, for example? It's not clear whether her job is important to the Storey story. You've put them in the same paragraph, so the presumption would be that there is a connection. A few commas would help here. How about something like, "At a local shinty fanciers meeting, She met Bobby Storey, a Provisional IRA volunteer, who persuaded her to join the IRA"?

FIRST TERM

"On the 5th April, 1976 she and two others bombed the Conway Hotel, Dunmurry-it is believed it was an attempt to kill members of the Security Forces who frequented the hotel." Please use em-dashes, not hyphens, where appropriate. However, a dash isn't appropriate here. I'd recommend a semicolon, or better yet, breaking this into two separate sentences.

IMPRISONMENT

~~Don't assume I know what "O/C" or "H-block" means.~~
Be careful about NPOV here. This section portrays her as a noble crusader. There's also an argument to be made that conditions might have been appropriate, or that inmates aren't there to be coddled. (I'm not arguing for these positions, just pointing out that you seem to have presented a one-sided account.) Can you cite a third-party reference that evaluates the conditions of the prisons?

SECOND TERM

These sentences are packing too much information. Break the sentences up so that each sentence contains an easily digestible amount of information. Don't try to pack everything in at once. You won't run out of paper, and you'll make it a lot easier for the reader to continue reading. If it's vital to point out connections between information that you've conveyed in separate sentences, use a third sentence to do so. The three sentences in this paragraph/section should probably be more like eight.
It would help if you explained Operation Flavius rather than tucking it in as a parenthetical afterthought. Assume that I don't know anything about the IRA, let alone Operation Flavius, and tell me what I need to know. Done my best but someone else might want to have a look...

AFTERMATH

The first sentence shouldn't stand alone. It should be the topic sentence of a paragraph that summarizes the aftermath. You can provide details in subsequent paragraphs.
The prose can be tightened throughout the article, but several examples pop out in this paragraph:

"The deaths in Gibraltar resulted in a further spiral of violence." These words tell me the same thing. How about "Violence escalated following the deaths in Gibraltar, claiming at least five more lives"? Again, done my best but someone else might want to have a look...
"while preparing to mount an attack on members of the British Army." How about "while preparing to attack British soldiers"?
Done my best but someone else might want to have a look..."At a 1995 hearing to review the killings by The European Court of Human Rights it was decided by the court..." How about "The European Court of Human Rights reviewed the incident in 1995. The 10:9 majority found that the Gibraltar Three were unlawfully killed"?

For the avoidance of doubt, that was not their conclusion --Gibnews

The last three sentence/paragraphs should be combined into a single paragraph whose topic is jury verdicts.
"Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes blundered into the funeral cortege" stood out to me. It almost makes it sound like they were drunk.
The parenthetical "see Corporals killings" flows awkwardly. Either use summary style or integrate "Corporals killings" into the text.

These are just one person's suggestions; feel free to adopt or dismiss them as you see fit. I hope this helps! Peirigill 20:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]