Wikipedia:Peer review/Aspect weaver/archive1

Aspect weaver

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to pull the article to GA status and as-of-yet have been the only contributor to the article. I'm looking for comments on the overall style and presentation, especially with regards to WP:MOS. Primarily, I'm asking for a peer review to get a second look at the article before taking it to WP:GAC. While I think there might still be a little content left to add, the overwhelming majority of the topic has been covered so I think this is an appropriate time for a peer review.

One of the biggest things I want a comment on: I added a "sample aspect" in the middle of the page on the right side. Does this look acceptable? I felt it would be inappropriate to place the sample in-line with the text because it would interrupt the prose. However, I'm open to criticism on that view.

Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

* The alt text for the image is descriptive of the process and not the image itself. I was wrong in this case per Wikipedia:ALT#Diagrams

• DAB Links shows these three as problems.
• Link Ref 3 is broken
• This may be my inexperience talking but what are the little colon+number next to some of the reference tags?
• The word "Aspect" is repeated a lot in the lead, any way of reducing this? eg Does it always have to be called "aspect weaver" or can it be taken to just "weaver" some of the time
• thisJoinPoint and thisJoinPointStaticPart should be in italics not a different font I believe as you are mentioning the term.

Hope that helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 11:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. With regards to some of your comments:

• The colon+number indicates the page number in the reference at which the content is located. I used template {{rp}} which I found, though I'm not really sure if it's a good idea to use or not. I've heard comments from both sides.
  • {{Cite Journal}} has a variable for page numbers. I don't see having the page number next to the ref useful for the reader as they won't know what it's for before they check the references section anyway. It's effectively splitting the information up.
    • The reason I ended up using {{rp}} instead of {{cite journal}}'s page numbers is because the same journal is used in many places, but on different pages. However, if you think duplication of the reference is OK, I see no problem with ditching {{rp}}.
      • I think in this kind of case, where there isn't loads of separate page numbers it'd be okay, it'll only be adding 5 or 6 refs to the list. If it were more I would recommend a notes section with shortened footnotes
• With regards to thisJoinPoint and thisJoinPointStaticPart, these are keywords of the language. It is typical in publications that this formatting is used, and the article on keywords seems to agree, but that is by no means a high-quality article, so it's a bad example to point at. I'd be welcome to any second opinions on this.
  • Personally I think they come under Formatting and Technical Terms. Also, I'm not sure how useful they are in putting them in the article, they're very specific and I could almost see them being considered jargon if they aren't explained properly.
    • I agree with your assertion, now that I think about it, of the fact that this is jargon and needs to be addressed. However, on the topic of formatting, I still don't really know where to go. It almost seems as if there's a missing WP:MOS section about it. The articles Python (programming language) and Forth (programming language) are both GAs and seem to use the formatting I used (see Python's comments about if and Forth's comments about BLOCK). But again, "other stuff exists" is rarely a solid basis for anything. Honestly, I'm totally confused about this formatting now... I might propose a change to MOS because of this (and thanks a lot for bringing it up). In hopes of concluding this peer review without a massive amount of discussion akin to an RFC, I'll ignore the formatting issues and focus on addressing the fact that this is unexplained jargon, which is certainly an accurate analysis. Thank.
      • Yeah I understand the "other stuff exists" but that could equally be seen as working from example, and looking at better articles is always a good way to improve so I wouldn't say you're totally wrong in that respect. If you do propose a change, give me a heads up because I wouldn't mind seeing the result.

Thanks again, --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to comments and fixed my alt text comment, my bad. CrimsonFox ^talk 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to replies. Thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Also like to point out that not all the references that supply web links have a retrieval date on them, it's inconsistent. CrimsonFox ^talk 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)