Wikipedia:Peer review/Agrippa (a book of the dead)/archive1

Agrippa (a book of the dead)

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article has undergone a successful GA review, and will be, I hope, a suitable candidate for FA someday. I would very much appreciate brutally honest comments and suggestions for improvement. Muchas gracias, the skomorokh  13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I recall reading about this at the time - generally nicely done article. Here very briefly, are mostly nitpicky suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Content and editions and critical receptions are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Unclear sentence Shortly after the project had germinated in the minds of Begos Jr. and Ashbaugh, Gibson was recruited to complete the trio.[2] - the trio has not been mentioned before, and it took me a second to realize what was meant
 * Problem sentence - what is "than a" there for? ... as poetry.[8] than a Gibson stated that Ashbaugh's design "eventually included a supposedly self-devouring floppy-disk intended to display the text only once, then eat itself."[9]
 * Would it be clearer to say  who, in order to classify it had to read it, and in the process, necessarily had to destroy it.[6]? two "to read it"s in a row seemed a bit confusing
 * Darknet is a dab
 * Would specifics of the Kroupa conjecture read better as specifics of Kroupa's conjecture?
 * There are two things that look like block quotes in the Release and replication section. Per WP:MOSQUOTE, block quotes should be at least four lines long. The attributions are also inconsisten (William Gibson is first name, last name - Kirschenbaum, Matthew G is last name, first name. I also think this last block quote needs to be put into context - see WP:PCR
 * Give metric as well as english units (book dimensions) convert may be helpful here.
 * "Partly unique" No - something is either unique or it is not.
 * The poem is a detailed description of several objects, including a photo album and the camera that took the pictures in it, and is essentially about the nostalgia that the speaker, presumably Gibson himself, feels towards the details of his family's history: the painstaking descriptions of the houses they lived in, the cars they drove, and even their pets. needs a ref
 * The section "The mechanism" makes little sense to me - could it be rewritten to be more accessible to the lay reader?
 * Should it not be mentioned that the text of the poem is available online at http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/source/agrippa.asp (an external link)? Or is this only part of the text?