Liberty in North Korea edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in this organization and I have recently made a significant number of changes to the article to update it and clean up several grammatical and reference issues. In particular, I want to make sure that the article's content is solid and that it is organized well, that it is cited correctly, and that it is presented in a neutral manner.
Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I just undid an auto-close from a bot to get feedback. Currently, there are only two articles ahead of me in the peer review backlog, so if anyone could peer review my article I'd greatly appreciate it! Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that you've waited long enough for some comments, and I will weigh in with something in the next 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! It looks like you've made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia, so I can't wait to hear your feedback. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, here goes
I have read through the article. It's an interesting subject, and your wish to improve the article is admirable, but it needs considerably more work if it is to become a high quality encyclopedia article. At the moment the prose reads more like a promotional handout than a neutral assessment of this organization – subjective wording ("including over 50 distinguished speakers, experts, and important figures") and informal language ("Hannah soon began talks with...") are just a couple of examples of the non-encyclopedic approach. The general aim, if I can put it this way, should be to create an article about the organization, not on behalf of the organization – which is the impression I have at present.
One problem is that too much of the content is referenced to LINK's own website, or to its facebook page. You would do well to find sources that view the organization's activities more objectively. Another question is the reliability of some of the non-LINK sources, e.g. "DailyNK", "Vimeo.com", Students for Liberty, "TED" video. You would need to demonstrate that these meet Wikipedia's high standards of quality and reliability. Also, ref 11 lacks publisher details. I notice, too, that citation is pretty uneven throughout the article, with some facts referenced and others not, for no apparent reason. Some whole sections, e.g. "Theory of change", are almost bereft of any citation.
The present structure of the article – many short subsections, often with only a single sentence of content, is a further problem. It breaks the whole thing up into small pieces; the article appears very "listy" and lacks prose flow. Lists (e.g. of facilities, videos etc) might be better summarised in table form at the end of the article.
These are some indicators of how you might approach the redevelopment of the article; I have not carried out a line-by-line copycheck, but there don't seem to be any basic problems with the prose standard. You need, however, to concentrate on the main issues of objectivity, structure, reliability of sources and consistent citation that I have pointed out. I note that you have only recently begun working on this article, and that your contributions thus far have been limited; it might be worth contacting some of the page's earlier editors to see if a collaborative effort might be possible.
I hope these comments are helpful. Don't hesitate to use my talkpage if you want general advice, although I am not competent to advise on the subjct itself. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the help! I'll probably end up re-writing the article with these suggestions in mind. I'll refer back to the current version, but will be more neutral and ensure the citations are there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)