Wikipedia:Peer review/John Adams/archive3

John Adams edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I nominated this article for FAC on July 4. It was closed on July 9 after only 5 days, premature in my opinion. By far the biggest issue at FAC was the article's length. All editors who commented expressed the opinion that the article was too long. Between July 4 and now, I, with some assistance, have reduced the article from 189,000 characters to 179,000, 5% of the total. Significant amounts of content have been condensed with much of it being moved into a new subarticle. I am hoping for people to be able to point out any remaining issues which would prevent this article from reaching FA status. I would like, if possible, for editors to apply the same level of vigor and comprehensives that they would at an FA review so that all apparent issues will be addressed once this article is renominated, which will hopefully be within the next month or two.

Thanks, Display name 99 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC) (Correction: The article started off at 186,000 characters when the FA review began and is now at 178,000. That accounts for a 4.3% reduction in total text. My memory and math are apparently horrible.) Display name 99 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Article size rule of thumb is between 60 and 100 kb 'readable prose' - the article is currently a north of 107 kb - so closer than it was, but if we could get below 100, one can at least point to WP:AS, when the 'too long' objection comes. I would think there might be a skillful "slasher" (heavry blue pen) at the Guild of Copy Editors (remember things can always be restored) - and a copy-edit (and fresh Eyes) is a good idea anyway. Also, as I think I previously mentioned readable prose size can be reduced to good effect by skillful use of moving some things into "Notes" section. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Alanscottwalker. I brought it down to a little over 178,000 characters, which helps a little. Can you please show me how to determine the kb measurement? That would be useful in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used User:Dr pda/prosesize but there may be others at WP:TOOBIG -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would also be helpful for me to expand on use of Notes, specifically. The first paragraph of the body contains this sentence "Adams's great-grandfather Henry Adams emigrated to Massachusetts from Braintree, Essex, England, around 1638.[4]" Perhaps useful for those doing a deep dive into Adams heritage but not essential readable prose in this bio (they would get that info from the father link, also). The same section contains this these sentences: "As an adult, Adams was a keen scholar. He was devoted to the works of ancient writers such as Thucydides, Plato, Cicero, and Tacitus, whom he read in their original languages.[8]." An aside, that's chron out of place but could be shifted to notes. Etc. Etc. Think what could be shifted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Notes section somewhat reluctantly. I admit I'm not enthusiastic about the concept, but have come to the realization that it must be necessary in order to reach a level of readable prose. There are four notations in there at the moment. I'm not very good at technology and don't know how many kb we have at this point, so it would be useful if you would update me. Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's now north of 103 kB. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, I figured out how to use the tool. The length is now down to 100 kB, right on the border. I think most editors will recognize the significant changes that have been made since the last review and length will not get in the way. Are there any other issues that you consider with mentioning that might pose a problem at an FA review? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have read complaints about length at FARs before, so just be prepared. As for more comments, over the years, I have been heavily involved in editing this article - my suggestion is fresh eyes, so 'hopefully someone else will comment, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]