Wikipedia:Peer review/Free Culture (book)/archive1

Free Culture (book)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's an assigned article for United States Education Program/Courses/Interactive Technology and Pedagogy (Michael Mandiberg) and, since an unaffiliated editor has markedly improved the page recently, I'd like to request comments as to what the students should focus on to possibly push the article up to featured article status. Thanks, Banaticus (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:FAC is a noble goal, but I think perhaps you should caution the students to think in terms of baby steps. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. It's great that you've initiated a PR, but after this I would suggest maybe WP:GAC -- provided that the article is much improved from what I'm seeing now. (Note: my idea of "improved" may be different than your own.)
 * Comments from Maria

In its current form, the article seems like only a re-hashing of the book's outline. Other than a brief section on "Derivative works", the article is an outline and summary of the book. I suggest you alert the students to this proposed structure of a non-fiction book. As the page states, a general book article may contain:
 * 1) A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers (see also WP:LEAD)
 * 2) A book synopsis
 * 3) Information about its publication
 * 4) A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view)
 * 5) Noteworthy citations and sources

The way I see it, the current "Synopsis" in the article is great -- keep that. But despite the amount of work and level of detail, the "Outline" is largely unnecessary and repetitive. Two important factors are currently missing from the article:
 * When was the book published? By whom?  Why?  The fact that it was published on the internet is notable, and should perhaps have been mentioned in news articles.
 * Was it popular? Did it sell well?  What did the critics think about it?  What effect has it had?

Another important point I want to make is the lack of reliable, secondary sources. The only reference I see is to Lessig's book: the book on which the article is based. This is a primary source. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Once you begin to research and add new info, unrelated to synopsis/summary, such as what I've suggested above, you should find outside sources to support that info. I see several sources listed at Lawrence Lessig that may prove helpful, but as an online ambassador, Banaticus, you should be able to point them in a more scholarly direction.

I hope these suggestions help. There's quite a bit of work to be done, but with some hard work I'm sure the article will be improved. María ( yllo submarine ) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to other potential reviewers: the article is being worked on in a sandbox, so the current version of the article is probably not stable. (Would have been nice to know that before I reviewed, sigh.)  As I stated here, the PR is rather premature.  María ( yllo  submarine ) 16:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)