Wikipedia:Peer review/H2g2/archive1

H2g2

 * 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 July 2009.
 * 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know how it can be improved beyond the changes I've already made. Since h2g2 has an Edited Entry about Wikipedia, I feel Wikipedia's article about h2g2 should aim for roughly the same status (good/featured article).

Thanks, AlexAshman (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will copy edit over the next few days as requested, but a couple of things leap out at me.


 * First, you should try to reduce or eliminate entirely the external links in the body of the article -- ie those that are not being used as references. Those that are or can be used as references should use one the appropriate citing formats, or even better citeweb. Also, headings should be in sentence case, per WP:MOSHEAD, rather than title case. Hope this helps for now. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * Many thanks for responding to my message. I've removed all the external links and created references where appropriate. I've also changed one of the section titles. 'Peer Review', 'Update Forum' and so forth are considered proper nouns and are capitalised on h2g2 - should they be treated as proper nouns in the section titles? – AlexAshman (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Brief Comments from Deltawk
 * The article needs more fair-use images - some screenshots of specific pages that you refer to in your article would be helpful. Deltawk (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * Will do - just waiting for autoconfirmed status so I can upload some graphics. AlexAshman (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to add some screenshots but a user has removed them on the basis that the section they applied to needed more references. AlexAshman (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (Note however that a screenshot I added to the infobox is still present, so I'll mark this as done for now.) AlexAshman (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (Oh and I've added references to the skins section and reinstated the skin screenshots) AlexAshman (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:OVERLINK states to "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." I skimmed through the page, and terms like "information", "friends", "recipes", "threads", "internet", "experts", "typos", "statistics", "musicians", "logged in", "retired", and more have well-known meanings and should be unlinked. Also, years should be unlinked. Wikipedia:OVERLINK is helpful. Deltawk (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ✅


 * This disambiguation tool here found some links in your article that link to disambiguation pages and not the intended article. It seems like most of the links should be removed per Wikipedia:OVERLINK, but wikilinks like Quantum Theory and Digibox should be disambiguated and fixed. Deltawk (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ✅

Comments from User:TechOutsider


 * Earth should to be capitalized in the context. ✅ (by reviewer)

More to come .. sorry it's my bedtime! TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 02:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only capitalize proper nouns. For example, "Peer Review".
 * Some more references; many sections have no references at all. TechOutsider (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Peer Review" is a proper noun in h2g2 terms - as for references, I've struggled to find secondary sources as the website doesn't appear that often in newspapers. AlexAshman (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from User:Peregrine Fisher


 * I don't know if your going for WP:FAC, but if you are, then the article is relying on too many primary sources, and not enough secondary sources. Basically, it needs to be based more on newspaper articles and such, and less on pages from H2G2. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)