| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
although not a long article it has been extensively added to by editors since the beginning of June. Through a request for intercession I eventually major copyedited and restructured the whole article to alleviate some contention that surrounded it. I would like a review of my major edit (although it has been added to by others in minor fashion since) and the article as it stands now, regarding all aspects, particularly sources. I understand this subject might not quite fit under this particular review section, but it is difficult for me to know where astrology does fit.
Thanks, Acabashi (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The article is insufficiently developed to warrant a full peer review which, as WP:PR makes clear, "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work...". The same page states that articles for PR "must be free of major cleanup banners". I would suggest that you give attention to the lead, which ought to be a summary of the whole article rather than an introduction to Elwell. You should also develop the text so that the article becomes less a series of lists. You need to format your online references more consistently; each such reference needs minimally a title, publisher and retrieval date. There is a disambiguation link on Kilroy. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)