Wikipedia:Peer review/Hendrik Wade Bode/archive1

Hendrik Wade Bode
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to complete the Featured Article process. All sections are open to review comments. Please feel free to comment on any matter you may think needs attention.

Thanks, Dr.K. (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a first read through. It needs a bit of work to get it to FA. I see that you have already disagreed on the talk page that the article is too conversational, I don't know if you changed anything then but it certainly needs some work along these lines now. If you really can't see this then let me know and I'll make a start. JMiall ₰  21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * tone - doesn't sound neutral, too much like a tribute
 * conversational, reads like an essay or magazine article
 * capitalisation - there is a huge amount of bad capitalisation, I would recommend you go through and check everything, particularly the links
 * remember that this is an article on Bode and not on the details of the things he worked on, these can be put into a different article if necessary
 * too many single paragraph / short sections
 * the table of patents is probably unecessary, these could be summarised in a sentence or 2
 * Thank you very much for your input and excellent points. Yes I have changed a variety of "conversational"/"tributary" sentences. If you think others need improvement please go ahead. Same goes for the capitalisation problems. Fix as you see fit. You can also tag the sections he worked on and you think don't belong and I'll try to arrange a new article including relocating the patents. Thanks again. Dr.K. (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, obvious that a lot of work has gone into it, but needs more work to reach FA. I agree with the comments above. The many short paragraphs and subsections break up the flow of the article. The initial image is expanded larger than its original size and looks grainy as a result. The internet references need to all have title, publisher, author (if known) and date accessed - see WP:CITE. Sentences like this This provided engineers with a fast and intuitive stability analysis and system design tool that is as popular today as it was groundbreaking then. need to be referenced and probably toned down for POV, unless the wording is directly attributable to a reliable source. Also watch out for repetition - the story (Counting House) he wrote with his wife is already described in the Hobbies and family life section, so it really doesn't need its own section again at the end. Perhaps the patents and the works he wrote could be in a list subarticle (List of Hendrik Wade Bode patents and works?). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Ruhrfisch. Great comments. Will be working on your observations. Feel free to work on the article any time. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Image size is dictated by the infobox. Can this be changed inside the box? Dr.K. (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have fixed it. JMiall  ₰  18:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)