Wikipedia:Peer review/Josef Rotter/archive1

Josef Rotter


I've listed this article for peer review in advance of a featured article candidacy.

Thanks, Nakaduli (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:FAC peer review sidebar
STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. And, since you are still seeking your first successful FAC, I suggest seeking a FA mentor and start reviewing FACs now to build goodwill among the FAC regulars. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus
The lead looks extraordinarily messy for a FA candidate. It’s lacking information to provide context for such an obscure artist. I don’t know what “fl.” means in the DoB/D section, and most readers probably won’t either. The picture should be at the top and probably in an infobox (I know they’re optional but adding one now will prevent headaches about why there isn’t one later) Dronebogus (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

UC
I concur that this will need a fair bit of work to bring it to FA standard, and note that it hasn't yet passed GA: would strongly suggest that as a first step, and perhaps a more suitable avenue to make improvements rather than to see it judged against fairly stringent criteria.

A lot of this article reads as OR or editorialising, where we have comments that do not seem directly supported by a secondary source. For example, the comment about the best indication of his birthdate being a 1902 photograph seems to be "cited" to that photograph itself: for that judgement to pass muster (and, really, to be in the article at all), we need a secondary source to say that the photo is the best indication. Other cases, such as are fairly textbook examples of WP:SYNTH: the article adds together facts which might individually be true and even cited, but reaches a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of the cited sources. For an FA, everything really needs to be clearly traceable back to a reliable, published source.

The citation system is highly unorthodox for Wikipedia and relies heavily on bare URLs. A lot of latitude is given to editors in choosing how to present their references, but I would strongly suggest going for one of the established systems and, at minimum, finding a way of avoiding bare URLs, which are discouraged for several reasons. One of the cited sources is a Wikipedia, which is never considered a reliable source; another seems to be edited by the curiously-named "Slavs and Tartars".

Pace User:Dronebogus, I think fl. is fine if that's the best we can do from the sources: the template explains it for anyone who needs, and it's fairly standard in published biographical work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * has not edited Wikipedia since October, so I am closing this PR. They may open a new PR upon their return and when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)