Wikipedia:Peer review/Colin Wilson/archive1

Colin Wilson
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has been done on it recently and I was wondering how it could be further improved.

Thanks, OlduvaiGeorge (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde
I don't have time for a full review right now (will try and remember to give a more comprehensive one later), but I've got a few brief comments: That's all I have for now. -- Shudde  talk 11:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead is very brief and should be expanded. It needs to adequately summarise the article.
 * The bibliography seems to be a copy of Bibliography of Colin Wilson and doesn't seem to add all that much. It's also unreferenced
 * There is a large list of further reading and external links. I'm not sure what purpose these serve. If some can be used as references then I encourage that (with appropriate inline citations), but otherwise it may be worth cutting those lists. (see MOS:FOOTERS)

Comments from Tim riley
I hope these suggestions are useful.  Tim riley  talk    16:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * General
 * Parenthetic dashes – you need to make them consistent. At present you have unspaced em-dashes, spaced en-dashed and spaced hyphens. The last is forbidden by the Manual of Style, and you need to decide which of the other two styles you prefer and apply it consistently throughout.
 * Date ranges
 * Separate the years with en-dashes and not hyphens (MoS).
 * Date style
 * "15 December", not "15th December".
 * Quotation marks
 * WP standard is double quotes. See the third and subsequent paras of Non-fiction writing for examples of single quotes that don't comply with the MoS.
 * We don't use smart quotes – see fifth para of Non-fiction writing.
 * Lead
 * Not nearly comprehensive enough, and contains material not in the main text. See Manual of Style/Lead section: a lead should (i) summarise everything of importance in the main text and (ii) not include anything that isn't developed in the main text. A good lead is a three- or four-paragraph summary of the subject, capable of standing on its own. Many visitors to the page will just read the lead and not the full article.
 * Early life
 * "Man and Superman" – link at first rather than second mention.
 * The Outsider
 * Last sentence of first para needs a citation.
 * Non-fiction writing
 * "labeled" – odd to use the American rather than the British spelling
 * "commentator Kenneth Allsop" – a pity to descend to the tabloidese false title: the insertion of a "the" will improve matters immensely.
 * The quote from The Chicago Review should be formatted as a blockquote. I can show you how, if needed.
 * The last four paras are complely uncited.
 * Do we really nead a link to "crime"? Who is going to need to click on it?
 * Fiction
 * Ditto for "fiction", and we certainly don't need a second link to it three paragraphs later.
 * Another blockquote needed here.
 * Did Wilson really write "cliches" instead of "clichés"?
 * The Return of the Lloigor (1969/1974)" – not clear about the significance of the two dates.
 * Adaptations
 * "recalled that author John Fowles" – another grating false title. Likewise Critic Nicolas Tredell and Science writer Martin Gardner in the next section.
 * "skeptical" – another unexpected outbreak of AmEng
 * Bibliography
 * At first glance this looks like a duplicate of the text of Bibliography of Colin Wilson. You don't need it twice. A summary of his works in various genres is all that's wanted here.
 * References
 * You need to be consistent about name order: Givenname Surname or Surname, Givenname. At present we have a mixture.
 * ISBNs are needed for all published books that you cite.
 * Ref 3 – bibliographical info lacking
 * Ref 5 – page number needed
 * Ref 7 – has a bare URL which needs to be reformatted.
 * Ref 8 – needs a link to the DID site.
 * Ref 9 – page number
 * Ref 12 – see ref 9: which is the same book differently laid out here. Page numbers wanted.
 * Ref 13 – page number
 * Ref 14 – ditto
 * Ref 20 – The headline may have been in all capitals in the source, but it shouldn't be here. Site info needs adding, too.