User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/editintro


 * Canned responses [ [ edit] ]

 Copyright: Article layout and focus: Notability and references: NPOV / Neutral&encyclopedic phrasing: Style and formatting:

Focus

 * 1) Picturing relationship of article subject with outside world is your task (something it itself can't write into the article) to focus on.

Style

 * 1) References list is unreadable, which prevents me from completing a comprehensive review. You have to use cite web inside of the ref tags.
 * 2) Inline citations are missing, making it impossible to verify any article content. You have to use inline citations.

Refs

 * 1) References provided are inadequate (there is 0). Were I to look through the references provided, I would be unable to match them to the content provided. This makes it impossible to verify any article content. You have to gather references, do heavy analysis of references gathered, and use inline citations. Some of this may be your personal knowledge — but you still have find which sources it's documented at; original research can't go to Wikipedia.
 * 2) The article focuses on the article subject description from the inside, but an encyclopedia focuses — at least upfront — on a subject description from the outside (while going into more detail is acceptable further down after this goal has been pleased). Think more about press coverage, user reception.
 * 3) The article focus is excessively shifted toward describing the subject features. In addition to this not meeting the basic needs of an encyclopedia, this creates a promotional writing piece. This comes at odds not only because the reader is left confused as to where the article subject is positioned in the world, but also because neutrality is a key governing principle at Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects).