Wikipedia:Peer review/Heim theory/archive1

Heim theory
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I need some independent input on how it could be improved. Right now, I have assessed it as a C-class article, but I am curious if there is any small tweek or update that would push forward to be considered for B, GA, A, or (eventually) F. I would appreciate a detailed review analysis once comeplete so I can know what needs work most. Thanks, Novus Orator 02:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interetsing theory, but I think this needs a lot of work before it would even have a chance at passing WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours,
 * The external links checker in the Toolbox on this page finds at least five dead external links and several more that are likely dead or at least problematic.
 * The article has a disputed neutrality banner - this is enough to disqualify it from receiving a peer review, and would be a quick fail at GAN or FAC.
 * References are a curious mix of inline cites and direct external links. The ELs all need to be converted to inline citations.
 * Many of the refs cited do not have complete information needed. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
 * A few places need refs - the tables in Heim's Predictions for Experimental Masses do not seem to have any source listed, and sentences like A further prediction of Heim-Dröscher theory shows how a different arrangement of the experiment by Tajmar et al. could produce a vertical force against the direction of the Earth's gravity. need a ref too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Article does not follow WP:ITALIC and is not internally consistent - Extended Heim Theory and Selector calcululus are italicized in the lead, but not elsewhere.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but dark matter is only in the lead.
 * The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interrupt the flow. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
 * History section should tell who Heim was, when he developed the theory, etc.
 * WP:See also says the See also section is generally not for links that are already in the article.
 * Make sure that sources used meet relaible sources guidelines - blogs and such generally do not.