Lock-in (decision-making) edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it will improve the quality of the article.
Thanks, Cccantarelli (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: See banners on article. It is not yet developed to a state that warrants a peer review and should be withdrawn. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: While I agree this does not meet the criteria for peer review, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- As currently written this article does not meet the Manual of style criteria. It lacks a lead section to start.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- WP:HEAD says not to repeat the title of the article in section headers
- Much of the article is so jargon-filled that I can not really follow it / understand what it is about.
- Most of the last two sections have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
- Ref 8 does not criteria for reliable sources as it has not yet been published.
- Given the user name of the editor who wrote this and the first author of ref 8, I think there may be a conflict of interest here.
- See also is generally not for links that are already in the article
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)