Wikipedia:Peer review/Hippie/archive1

===Hippie===

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to FA status, and to do that, I have to edit it enough to get it up to GA, and I need to know where to start.

Thanks, Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Hippie/archive1.

Comments from


 * I'd recommend tackling the Legacy section first, as it has a big banner at the top asking for references, which I see are still needed.
 * Lots of other places have Citation needed tags
 * Other paragraphs are uncited but don't have tags on them yet. A good general rule of thumb for GA and (especially for FA) is that each paragraph should have a source citation at the end, at the very least.
 * A number of the paragraphs are one or two sentences, that gives the prose a choppy feel and makes it hard to read. Consider combining a few together or expanding them to help the prose flow.
 * My personal preference is for the pictures to be more staggered, not all down the right side.
 * Perhaps a bit of overlinking going on? Do we really need links to health food, cyperspace, popular music, middle class, a number of countries, drugs, theatre (which should be theater since it's about an American culture?), mainstream, patriotic, vagrant, etc.
 * A number of items are wikilinked more than once, San Francisco, Owsley Stanley, Jefferson Airplane, Grateful Dead, Haight-Ashbury, etc. You only need to link something the first time it appears, and maybe if it appears again a LONG distance away in the article. The next paragraph or so isn't a long distance away.
 * Some of the references and footnotes are lacking publisher information. Also last access date on some of the website references.
 * I'm not a copyeditor, so I didn't do an in depth sentence by sentence reading of the article, you might find someone else to do that for you after you deal with the citation issues.

From SandyGeorgia

 * I intened to do some basic cleanup myself, but the first problem I found was a bit unsurmountable. Per WP:CITE, the citation template should never be mixed with the cite family of templates (cite book, cite web, cite news, and so on) because they result in two different citation styles.  I would eliminate citation, easy, but ... the article also uses harvard referencing, which requires the citation template.  So, the regular editors have to pick one or the other, and I can't begin cleanup until that's done.  My recommendation (but this is personal preference) would be to lose the citation templates, convert them all to cite templates, lose the harvnb notes, and use the referencing style at Bette Davis.
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask User:Brighterorange to run his dash fixing script; hyphens are used where endashes are needed.
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Date formatting is inconsistent; again, this is a function of the mixed citation templates. Either all full dates are linked, or no dates are linked, per WP:MOSDATE, but since citation and the cite templates handle dates differently, the sources are all different, some linked, some not, some ISO format, some not.
 * Done? Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cannot understand why there are full stops (periods) after the citations, for example, see Further reading.
 * It's needed for the citation template as cite provides full stops as part of the template, no? Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inconsistent page formatting (also partly related to mixed citation styles): sometimes pg., sometimes p. and sometimes nothing.  Should be consistent. And space between p. and the number or not?  example,  pp.66-67.
 * In progress. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Double punctuation in citations, see for example: Scottmckenzie.info.. Retrieved ...
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSDATE no-nos, example: a b "The Hippies", Time, 1968-07-07. Retrieved on August 24, 2007.  Which date format?  Be consistent.  But first the citation style has to be set.
 * In progress. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't even check the sources for reliability, because as of now, the sources are too scrambled and difficult to read. I can check after they're cleaned up to a consistent format.  For example, what is this format?  ^ Time Magazine SPECIAL ISSUE, Spring 1995, Volume 145, No. 12, http://members.aye.net/~hippie/hippie/special_.htm, retrieved 25 November 2007 That website certainly isn't time, looks like a personal website, and could be a copyvio, and the citation is incorrectly formatted. By the way, on the SPECIAL ISSUE, see MOS:CAPS, reduce caps.
 * In progress. Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's a problem with the way quotations are formatted if you intend to go for FA; see WP:MOS. Use a plain blockquote without the cutesy quote graphic.
 * No problem, but this change may upset some editors. What should I tell them? Viriditas (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:ITALICS on foreign phrases, In Mexico, the jipitecas formed La Onda Chicana ... and what the heck are jipitecas? Define terms the first time they're used.
 * I usually start from the bottom (as that's where articles tend to fall apart), but I didn't spend much time in Legacy because it contains a lot of weasly-ness and it looks like mostly original research; I suggest it should be mostly chopped out and rebuilt only from scrupulous use of reliable sources, eliminating weasly words and uncited passages like ... "continues to permeate society", " Unmarried couples of all ages feel free to travel and live together without societal disapproval." (really?), "there are many new age travellers who are known" ... Most of this section looks and reads like promotional material and weasly original research, and it should be unceremoniosly axed and rebuilt with care.
 * Incorrect use of dashes; example: Hippies inspired many other changes--the ... and ... the rally was twofold — to draw attention ...
 * The "travel" section suffers from the same severe lack of citation as the Legacy section; unclear how much is original research, since so much of it needs to be cited.
 * See WP:PUNC and adjust logical punctuation throughout, example: ... also known as "acid."
 * The Politics section also offers up uncited, weasly, original research: Hippies were often pacifists and participated in non-violent political demonstrations, ...
 * A lot of the bottom half of the article is seriously lacking citation, and neither GA nor FA are attainable with so much original research in the article. It should all be chopped.
 * I see a lot of WP:OVERLINKing; only the first occurrence of a word needs to be linked, and common terms don't need to be linked.
 * Incorrect WP:HYPHEN: ... and expanded to 700-pages in 2004 ...
 * Define acronyms on first occurrence, example LSD: ... like cannabis and LSD to explore .. and LSD doesn't need to be linked every time it occurs.
 * The top of the article is better cited; things fall apart in the bottom, so start from the bottom to work on the article.
 * Another sample of a WP:PUNC error, review throughout: ... who "acted more Negro than Negroes."[23]
 * Another example of incorrect dash usage, January 21–January 23, 1966,  ... spaces when the date elements contain spaces.
 * Two more incorrect dashes: attracting an estimated 700-800 people.[44] As explained by Allan Cohen, co-founder of the San Francisco Oracle, the purpose of the rally was twofold — to draw attention  ...

I'll be glad to help with some of the MoS cleanup (in fact, intended to do so), but first the citation style should be ironed out, and the article should be thoroughly cited. Please ping me. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

From User:RyRy5

 * There seems to be quite a bit of "citation needed" templates. I would really suggest finding more reliable sources for that.


 * I seem to have spotted some WP:OVERLINK in the article, more specifically heading towards the middle and end of the article. I may be able to copy edit that part myself, but I suggest cleaning up it those areas.

I pretty much agree with SandyGoergia with the rest, and I'll be happy to help copy edit, clean up, etc. all that I can. Cheers. -- RyRy5  ( talk  ♠  Review ) 00:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)