Wikipedia:Peer review/Impalement/archive1

Impalement
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because on the second GA fail, no comments were given. However, I have made a major restructuring from a primary draft, in which I made a basic geographic listing, rather than synthesizing reviewed evidence into a "Main Uses" section. That primary draft suffered from excessive repetition, which I believe has been remedied by hiding away similar evidence in refererence notes in "Main Uses". I hope, however, that a peer review might point to other things I should do.

Thanks, Arildnordby (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a few MOS fixes but feel free to revert. This is not a topic I'd normally look at and I'm certainly no expert but a few comments: Lead
 * This appear short & could be expanded to more fully summarise the article.
 * "unintentional accident" can an accident be intentional?

Main uses
 * Jean de Thevenot is a redirect to Jean de Thévenot - presumably the accent on the é should be included
 * I wouldn't include the organisational guidance ie Below, some examples are presented, but most are referred to in notes pertaining to this section, or within the "Methods" section. - this should be clear to the reader or they may enter the article via a link at a different point.
 * I don't understand "In addition, impalement as a form of post mortem indignity is recorded"
 * Should "Levant" be wikilinked? I don't know what it means here

Mass executions and spectacles of horror
 * I would combine the 2 bits about Boudicca's revolt
 * Dozsa Rebellion is an external link - should be turned into a ref
 * Why is the last paragraph indented? if this is a translation quote should speech marks be used?

Africa
 * Thomas Shaw is an ext link
 * Why is the second paragraph indented? if this is a translation quote should speech marks be used?

Asia
 * How many "t"s in Latakia / Lattakia

Notes
 * Note j has links to 2 dab pages primitive & implication

References
 * in Ref 14 Malabar currently points to a dab page - but I don't know which one is correct.
 * Ref 29 "Turkish Culture: The Art of Impalement" is a deadlink
 * There seem to be several "*)" eg 4 & 32 - what are these about?
 * Some web refs don't have access dates eg 61, others have the accessdate in inconsistent formats eg 116 v 84
 * Some books eg 89 don't have publishers
 * It might be worth thinking about listing the books as a bibliography so they are easier to find eg Moore & possibly using a citation template such as Template:Harvard citation or Template:Sfn to simplify the list

General comments
 * Lots of short 1 sentence paragraphs - I have seen several GA reviewers prefer these to be combined.
 * The indented paragraphs confused me - not sure if all are quotes or translations - if not why are some of them laid out like this? Check speech marks

Hope these comments are helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 10:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for helpful comments! I'll write a few "responds" here, as much for myself "to do" as to you: 1.The indented paragraphs are direct quotes (using "quote" template), I'll clarify that. 2. I had thought of a Bibliography list, but was worried about length of article? 3. The "*)" marks each distinct evidence in the listing of them, in order to separate them from each other. 4. I'll go over the links etc. Arildnordby (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Substantial standardization of bibliography and webcitation is required and in progress, as per very valuable peer input. In addition, I have come to the conclusion the "Methods" section needs substantial expansion, to explain rather varied techniques. Medical effects need to be expanded as well. I choose therefore to close peer review for nowArildnordby (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)