Wikipedia:Peer review/Event-driven SOA/archive1

Event-driven SOA
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the topic is complete and free from common errors. It clearly and concisely quantifies the subject matter and presents a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge.

Thanks, Lancelotlinc (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll perform a review of the article though I am not familiar with the subject matter. As such I can't comment on the content but I can discuss compliance with WP's Manual of Style. I'll make some minor edits with some thoughts for improvement in the edit summary as well.

Lead
 * See WP:LEAD for information on what is required in a lead. The lead is to be a summary of every point brought up in the body of the article.  It also should not bring up information not discussed in the article.  An article of this length usually would have at least two paragraphs in the lead.  Consider expanding to encompass a summary of all the points raised in the article.

SOA 2.0 SOA 2.0 conceptual examples Overarching thoughts That does it for my review. I don't typically watch review pages so if you have a questions feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll happily come over and take a look. Happy editing and thank you for your contributions! H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The first section is seven paragraphs of no more than three sentences each. Consider combining the paragraphs if the subject matter is coherent.
 * I like your explanation of terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers. In a technical article such as this it is important to not stray into jargon but to keep the language as simple as possible.
 * There is only one in-line citation in the entire section. That will need to be expanded.  See below for thoughts on citations.
 * The first paragraph in the "Prototypical SOA 2.0 Paradigm" sub-section is one run-on sentence. This is grammatically incorrect and should be broken up into a sentence for each point.
 * Short paragraphs of one or two sentences are discouraged. Try to combine or expand them.
 * Watch abbreviations, I note "SQL" but I don't see it spelled out anywhere. You want to spell it out like you did with "Causality Vector Engine (CVE)".  Then simply use the abbreviation going forward.  ESB is another example, even though it's linked you want to spell it out as well.
 * You talk about mediation flows in the "Data enrichment" section but then you define what a mediation flow is in the next sub-section entitled "Mediation flows". Consider adding the definition to the Data enrichment section, it seems a bit odd to have references to mediation flows before it is defined.
 * The structure of the article is confusing to me. As I see it the first section is explaning the architecture while the second section gives examples.  Having an entire section dedicated to examples seems like overkill.  Could the examples be folded into the section explaining SOA 2.0?  Could the SOA 2.0 section be broken into a couple of sections?  I'm not familiar enough with the material to suggest natural breaking points unfortunately.  By the way I really appreciate the examples as it brings the information into a real world experience.
 * In that vein a one-sentence sub-section is too short ("Engineering Defect").
 * See WP:CITE. This page will give you a format for how to consistently reference material.  You should use a cite web template.  Check out the section about how to present citations.  Each website reference should have the title of the page, the publisher, the url and the accessdate.
 * Ref # 2 appears to be a dead link, please check out and if so please repair.
 * As previously stated the SOA 2.0 section needs more referencing.
 * The strong part of your writing is your ability to convey the complex while incorporating examples for lay people. Please keep that up. I've ready numerous programming articles that just mire the reader in a pit of jargon and programmese.  This article is a refreshing change.
 * I think some critical examination of the article structure is in order. Look at combining sub-sections, moving the examples into the explanation section and perhaps breaking the explanation section into two or even three major sections.
 * I can't speak to the comprehensiveness of the content sorry.
 * Is there an image that could be added to the article?