Wikipedia:Peer review/Joan Crawford/archive1

Joan Crawford
This peer review discussion has been closed.
 * 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the material certainly exists to bump it to GA class, assuming that my recent work on it is not already sufficient (I doubt that it is but then I'm hardly objective). This is a featured article in two other languages and there's no reason why it shouldn't be in English too (although while I'm willing to put in an assist to get it there I will not take the lead on an FAC for it). So, immediate goal, get it to GA. Secondary goal, lay the groundwork for FA. I realize it's a bit convoluted but if whoever reviews this would be willing to break down your review to GA-necessary and FA-necessary components that would be amazingly helpful.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Review from Graham Colm  Talk

This is a very well-written article and generally engaging. I see no problems with the prose but there are problems with the lack of citations. There are many statements throughout the article which are unsourced. I know this can be a drag, but a lot more work is needed on this. And, just how many of the pictures of Joan are really necessary? They are all over the place and are not that interesting because they are portraits and not of the characters she played. There is a little redundancy in places, ("to that name"), and some trivial linking such as God and last words. Single sentence paragraphs are not a problem in my book, but others might object. It would be for the best to try to join them up. I see Filmography is empty apart from a link to the main article. This is probably okay for GA but not for FA. Lastly, there are far too many external links.

I didn't find it at all convoluted. For GA it needs a few more references, but for FA a lot more. For FA it needs more criticism of her roles and her acting in general including préces of contemporary film reviews perhaps. GA shouldn't be difficult—the article is tantalisingly close and I hope my comments are helpful. I have seen many FACs that have been less prepared than this, but few of them succeeded without extensive work on the article during the candidature, and this is becoming increasingly unpopular with reviewers. So in a nutshell, more refs, less pictures, less links, damn close to GA, not yet FA, but a damn good read. Thanks and well done. Graham Colm Talk 17:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)