| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
This article has a lot of very good information and should probably be B-class in the not-too-far future. Please help by assisting in finding which specific locations in the article do not meet WP:B-Class criteria and please leave suggestions for improvement.
Thanks, Adavis444 (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by Jappalang
- The dablink tool (from the box on the right) shows three disambiguation links that should be fixed.
- The Checklinks tool shows two dead links; these should be updated.
- The article structure is currently a mess in my opinion; I am not certain what are we to make of this conference from the article.
- Try a structure like History (how and when it was formed), Events (staple or unique features in prose, not list form), Attendence (attendence, noting figures, demographics, and trends; celebrities or other notable figures), Impact (what is its relevance to its industry or other sectors).
- The list of events is a big block to reading flow; seeing a list of details in the middle of text tends to do that. Change it to prose form (are all that information—year-by-year, list of guests—really needed), spin it off or move it to the end of the article.
- Most of the article is in list form or short paragraphs; that does not help generate a smooth reading experience, nor does it give much for one to evaluate prose quality. Group items into certain themes or topics, and present them in paragraph form.
- Most of the sources are either primary or not reliable; what makes AnimeCons a reliable source? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches for how to search for and determine reliable sources.
Overall, I think this has yet to reach B-class. Jappalang (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)