Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Moore/archive1

Alan Moore
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think it can be brought back up to GA, and eventually make it to FA. It was delisted after a GA reassessment; anythin there you want to reiterate or anything you think the reviewer missed or got wrong? There are plenty of sourcing issues (see all the CN templates). Any suggestions you can provide would be helpful (where to look, any books you know of). Anything else you think this article needs to really help it shine, be bold and speak up.

Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While I knew some about his disputes over creator's rights, I learned a lot from the is article and found it very interesting. To make it to GA and FA it needs some work, so here are some 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; 19:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD should probably be 3 or 4 paragraphs for an article this long. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - as one example, Jack Kirby being an influence is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the current sections do not seem to be in the lead.
 * Biggest problem as I see it with this making GA or FA is a lack of references. The lead does not have to have refs except for direct quotes or extraordinary claims, but most of the rest of the articles needs refs. Personal life and Early work seem to be OK as far as refs go, but even there some refs could be at the end of sentences or have a space betwen them and the punctuation (should be no space). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Watchmen is an FA, so it may be a source of refs on Moore
 * There are three fair use images in the article and none of them are by Moore himself (since he is the writer and not the illustrator). This might be a problem under WP:NFCC at FAC. Of the three the Watchmen characters seem most likely to be OK as they were created by Moore based on old DC characters.
 * I think it would help to provide more context to the reader in several places. For example, could years be added to the section headers (so "American mainstream (1983–1989)"). Some places have dates already, but others need them - when did he first write V for Vendetta for example? Or when did his first wife and their lover leave him? See WP:PCR
 * The Recent work section header will become out of date and should be changed. Perhaps "2008 to present" or something like that?
 * The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others where possible, or in a few cases expanded
 * The emphasis given to some of his other work at the end seems to raise possible WP:WEIGHT issues. For example, the section on his Simpsons appearance (which includes an uncited direct quotation that needs a ref) is nearly as long as the paragraph on Watchmen, which is probably his best known work. I would put that Watchmen is the only comic to have won a Hugo award in the lead, by the way.
 * As an artist, I think there should be some sort of critical reception section.