User talk:ResearcherQ/sandbox

From TheOriginalSoni
The article looks solid, and good to go. However, a few minor things -
 * The lead/lede of the article is supposed to summarize it. It may just be my ignorance of the topic, but I think your lead delves into the topic than the brief skim that is required. More specifically, the second paragraph is one I wouldn't want to see there
 * There are several paragraphs without citations. If possible, I'd want those to be cited too, though I understand finding sources for everything can be tough. Please also note that you can use the same reference more than once in the article, if the references for the uncited paragraphs are already given.
 * Otherwise everything is good. Just link a few more words, whenever necessary.

Regards, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The summarization is a little hard, but I think it can happen iteratively over time.  I'd rather use the approach of maturing the article live, rather than just holding it closely for weeks/months.  Will that cause it to be rejected at RfC time? ResearcherQ (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you mean AfC and not RfC. Also, given how the article is, I'll be happy to personally approve the AfC myself because it's definitely good enough. This article is certainly way above AfC standards, but I gave you the above feedback anyways because you asked for it :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're a treat -- thanks. You'll see I've already taken your advice: added references and moved a paragraph.  It gets better by the hour!  ResearcherQ (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)