Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Academic Decathlon/archive2
United States Academic Decathlon edit
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to submit it for GAR and would like a fresh set of eyes to look it over before it is submitted. It has gone under substantial revisions since early June and has improved greatly. I'd like it to be looked over mainly for MOS and prose/clarity issues mostly in addition to the standard GA criteria. There is a little bit more content I'd like to add, but as it stands now, it's fairly complete without going into too much detail.
Thanks for any and all input! Yohhans (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
- Article needs more references - for example the last half of the 2000 – 2001 section, the second paragraph of the Events section, and direct quotations in Subjective events all need refs, as does the entire Topics section / table. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. It would also help to get more third party indepepndent sources.
- Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase (so change Previous winners of the competition are listed in the table below[39]:). Refs also need to be consistently formatted - look at the first three refs, all from the LA Times, all formatted differently. {{Cite news}} would help here - also "pp." is for multiple pages but you opnly list one page so use "p." See WP:CITE and WP:V
- Fixed the punctuation problem and the use of "pp.". However, I am indeed using {{Cite news}} to reference things. It's just that the template formats the reference differently if an author is not supplied. So for the sources where I could not find an author, the reference looks different than sources with an author. - Yohhans (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK Examples Decathlon has long been regarded as the most exciting aspect of the competition ... (needs aref anyway) and That year at Nationals, James E. Taylor High School produced the phenomenal score of 52,470, the highest team score the country had yet seen.[12] could be just That year at Nationals, James E. Taylor High School had the highest team score yet seen in national competition, 52,470.[12]
- In the Topics table, why not make Super Quiz a third column, so it would be in the same row with the year and topic?
- Any chance of getting a photo of an actual competition? Any criticisms or scandals - article may be seen as too pro this topic (POV)
- I have actually included various (sourced) comments about previous scandals/controversies in the past but one user continues to remove these edits. I have just re-added them. Perhaps you can tell me what you think. i.e. do they have biased wording? The relevant sentences are the first four sentences in the "2000-2001" section, and the second paragraph in the "Cheating and biases" section. Regarding a picture of the competition, there are a great number to be found on state AD websites, but I'm still new to fair use rationale, so I am not really sure what I can and cannot use. So far, all the images I have used I have either created myself or retrieved from Commons. - Yohhans (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I know you are incredibly busy which makes me appreciate your review all the more. - Yohhans (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- The scandals seem to be written well to me and I owuild include them. As for photos, fair use is usually for things that are difficult to obtain otherwise. Since anyone with a camera could theoretically get a AD photo at a local competition, I doubt that fair use would hold up here. Two possibilities would be to ask for premission to use a photo or two - they would have to release it under the GFDL or a Creative Commons CC license and their email releasing it would need to be sent to WP:OTRS. Another possible source would be Flickr - a search there finds a lot of AD photos with a CC license, but it has to be all the allowed options, so again you would have to ask the photo poster to change the license. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- In the worst case scenario, I can always take a picture in the next regional or state meet I attend, if I'm not judging. So, fair use wouldn't hold there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- The scandals seem to be written well to me and I owuild include them. As for photos, fair use is usually for things that are difficult to obtain otherwise. Since anyone with a camera could theoretically get a AD photo at a local competition, I doubt that fair use would hold up here. Two possibilities would be to ask for premission to use a photo or two - they would have to release it under the GFDL or a Creative Commons CC license and their email releasing it would need to be sent to WP:OTRS. Another possible source would be Flickr - a search there finds a lot of AD photos with a CC license, but it has to be all the allowed options, so again you would have to ask the photo poster to change the license. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)