Wikipedia:Peer review/George Steinbrenner/archive1

George Steinbrenner
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has a ton of fantastic information and may soon qualify for featured article candidacy. However, I would like to have some members look it over first to point out what they think could be improved.

Thanks, Alex (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Steinbrenner is in the news lately because of his recent death, and it would be good to have a good article about him. The existing article does, as you say, contain a lot of information, but much is unsourced, and the organization leaves much to be desired. With a lot of work, it might become GA or even someday FA, but it is nowhere near GA yet. Here are some suggestions for improvement:


 * Generally, an article should be free of major clean-up tags before being considered ready for peer review. The existing article has two major tags.


 * Much of the article lacks sourcing. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as any claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, any direct quote, and every set of statistics.


 * The "In the media" section is essentially a list of trivia. I'd suggest shrinking this to a single paragraph that mentions only the most important items and reduces the rest to "among others" or words to that effect.


 * The "Seinfeld caricature" section is also about trivial matters. I would mention it only briefly, probably as part of the single paragraph mentioned above.


 * I think a chronological structure would make more sense than the existing one. The article begins with a chronological arrangement but doesn't stick to it, going forwards for while, then backwards from 1991 to 1981 to 1978, then forwards again. Most of the items in the "Honors" section could be placed within a chronological structure, and such things as buildings named after Steinbrenner could be merged with the "Death" section to form a "Death and legacy" section.


 * Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed and will need to be fixed.


 * The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead is quite short and doesn't do justice to the full article. WP:LEAD has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)