User talk:Mjkrepp/James P. Hunter

Peer Review
I would consider this article an overall Excellent.

The Who of the article was explained very well and in detail about what exactly happened. Who the article is about and why.

Death: The part about death is explained well in detail.

Context: The context of the story is explained very well in the fact of the history of the war, the hist of the solider journalist, and what was exactly happening during the time of the journalist death.

Impact: The impact of the story is explained very well and in depth. It really shows why the journalist deserves a wikipedia page about themselves and the impact they provided to their field.

Personal and Career: The personal section of the article is written very well. It explains his situation, his funeral service, and where he was born and raised. Writing about the personal side of a person can be very hard, however this person wrote it very well.

Internal and Exernal: No links were provided that I say, but I think the written article makes up for that.

References: The references part of the page is well put together.

Critique
I'm not sure who your peer was but this person was too easy going.

The lack of citations throughout the article creates a credibility problem. Use WP:Inline Citations. The citations have to be put ino the text. I have laid out "citation needed" templates throughout.

You captured the notability but just left it as a statement. Now you need to develop the idea and put it into perspective. How does one army journalist dying compare to other wars and how many Americans or Afghans have died since the war began?

I'm surprised by how few references you had. Hunter's death was a big deal and you would have had obituaries and other types of articles about him, as well as video and other external links. I don't think you explored enough.

The links issue is easy. You don't want to create an orphan article, or one that has no incoming links. Likewise, you don't want to create an article that has no external links.

I edited out a lot of repetition. Don't do that. People don't have the patience to read the same sentence many times.

One more big push. Find out more! Don't be satisfied with surface. Cite, Cite, Cite. And use the correct codes.

Crtew (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)