Wikipedia:Peer review/List of causes of fever/archive1

List of causes of fever edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel it is a fairly comprehensive, is well referenced (all diseases listed have a reference certifying that they cause fever) and deserves to become a featured list.

Thanks, Immunize (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from liquidluck✽talk

Thanks for writing the article. It appears comprehensive and well researched, but it is not yet ready for Featured List status. Here's a few pointers:

In order to take this from a directory to an encyclopedic list, it requires an introduction written in prose. For this article, the lead should define both fever and each of the categories you've listed — infectious, rheumatic/autoimmune, and malignant — and a bit of background on them. It should also state the list's inclusion criteria- what qualifies an item for inclusion in the list and in, in this case, the category.
For FL standards, this lead should be engaging and well written.
The references need to include as much as possible of the requirements listed at WP:CITEHOW. In my experience, the easiest and preferred way of doing this is by using citation templates. Just copy the code and fill in as many parameters as possible.
- fixed it for you. Sandman888 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the list isn't very useful. Perhaps add details about how common each disease is.
Add images to make the list visually appealing.
The external link needs to be given a title and a (very) brief description about what it is. For example, [http://www.fever.com The official website of fever] would produce a link to the nonexistant official fever website: The official website of fever

Hope that helps. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Good luck, liquidluck✽talk 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately, the list was nominated for deletion this morning, and I am concerned that deletion could occur, as so far there appears to be some concensus that the list is not useful. Feel free to comment at the lists page at articles for deletion. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.