User talk:Jakealler/George Rawick/QuintonHogshead Peer Review

Your lead is up-to-date and acceptable. The introductory sentence is acceptable and is well-written.

I'm going to apologize if you have more of an article written in a word document somewhere, because I can't find anything beyond a few sentences of edits. If this is the sort of thing where life got in the way and you just haven't actually written that much, then it happens. But I do think you need to add a lot more, because as it stands, a few sentences is dangerously thin for an article like this. Just keep that in mind.

I think that this article is rather short. For all of the mention about Rawick's academic work, there is little detailed discussion of the topics covered in those works. For a Wikipedia page about an author who's known for a specific work, I would expect there to be a lengthy summary of the work. What sort of narratives are discussed in the 41-volume work? This would be a good place for you to expand on what you've written already. What sort of people did he interview? What were the interviews like? What stories were collected? the Ph.D. dissertation is also mentioned, and I think that could be cited more.

I'd say to add more about his life, but I understand that it's possible that there isn't much about him.

All that said, your article is rather wordy and non-formal. Words like "Probably" can be cut and made much more succinct. There are few spelling errors that need to be changed. Leftish where it should be Leftist, for example.

QuintonHogshead (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)