User:Drpencil9/Howard Besser/Flanagan Institute Applicant Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Drpencil9


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drpencil9/Howard_Besser&oldid=1051811520


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Howard Besser

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review for Drpencil9's "Howard Besser" article draft.

Noticed that the current draft for the lead section is most of the original biographical section from the current Besser article, with virtually no user editing: the purpose of a Wikipedia lead should be an introduction to the article's subject, and provide a brief summarization of that subject, the topics discussed in the article, and an explanation of why they are historically or culturally important. This current draft of the lead pushes the reader right into Besser's life and accomplishments, without taking a moment at the beginning to familiarize the reader of the person they are reading about.. It might be worth considering moving (and rewriting) the biographical material currently drafted as the leader back to its own dedicated biographical section immediately afterwards, and compose a new leader section. Looking at the original leader for an inspirational foundation, but then composing a new text incorporating old and new citable sources is a suggestion. The inclusion of a biographical infobox in the top-right corner of the article, as in the original, might also be worth considering.

Content-wise, the article body consists of a thin outline of topics (Timeline, Reporting, Study, Preservation, Personal/Outreach), with each accompanied by a short, related paragraph or sentence. Overall wordcount is approximately 250 words less than the assignment's expectations. While newly-sourced, relevant to the subject and neutral in tone, the content itself is certainly reflective of a very early state of compositional writing, and could use more structural organization and compositional flow between sections by the author. New citations are properly listed at the article's end and their citations are formatted correctly within the article's body: consider combining the original article's references with those added for the new edit, and even creating new citations to reflect the evolving form of the new article: some elements, such as the final paragraph within the lead, lack citations, as do a number of statements in the draft for the main body.

Text shows an unbiased authorial voice, but as further drafts proceed, consider avoiding declarative, subjective statements such as "Besser is the most highly published author..." without backing. Sentences should also be kept short and the language throughout the article needs to be more clinical or academic, in tone with an encyclopedia article then an essay. Article currently lacks images, but the only media on the original article was an random video featuring Besser, that should not be considered a detriment at the moment. Perhaps this video can be sourced and added instead to the External Links section, which should also see expansion along with the addition of a "See Also" section for related internal wiki links.

Ultimately, this draft depicts a solid, but very early representation of a properly organized and composed Wikipedia article. With further edits and expansion, this effort could certainly outclass the form of the current article as it is publicly available.