Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bitcoin companies/archive1

List of Bitcoin companies
I've listed this List for peer review to find out what enhancements might be needed to make this a featured list. Thanks, -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm pleased you've listed this for a Peer Review prior to nomination at FLC, because it needs a lot of work! Immediate stand out problems are that the lead is very short, and does not give a detailed enough summary of what Bitcoin, and what the list is detailing. Further prose about specific things from the list would be helpful, too, as to give context and info about some of the companies, and notable, famous or important facts. As it stands, it does not meet section 1 of the FL criteria: "It features professional standards of writing.", mainly because there isn't actually much prose. Similarly, it does not meet section 2 of the criteriam either: "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.", you kind of set out to say what this list is, but there is no context or reason for it. What are you showing us? Another problem is that the list, well the whole article, is completely void of any sources, citations or references to back up and substantiate what it is exactly that you are presenting to the reader. Nothing in the article so far can be verified or checked to see if it's true. As such, everything here is original research, something which will not go down well in an FLC nomination and would most likely result in an immediate close. I would say it passes section 3a, as I am assuming that you've included all the companies in the list. I don't know enough about the subject, but in order to pass 3b, then the info here should not be a regurgitation of what exists in other articles. I'd say it passes section 4 for structure, as it's a nice, clean table and you've made the columns sortable. However, I would list the city then the country, not the country then the city. Unless you have separate columns for each? There's no red linkage, and you've included some examples of media. There's no edit warring recently and it seems quite stable, as you seem to be the main contributor. Thus, I think the first couple of sections of the criteria are what you need to focus on in order to get to the stage of nomination at FLC: the lead, good level of prose writing, and sources for everything you include (with properly formatted citations). There's a problem with one of the rows, it doesn't have a properly formatted box. Hope this helps. Please ping me if you have any comments of questions. Good luck. — Calvin999 19:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments from Calvin999