Wikipedia:Peer review/Louise Bourgeois/archive1

Louise Bourgeois
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to become a featured article.

Thanks, Scott Bywater (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I read the long Guardian obituary a few days ago, which was more or less my introduction to this remarkable artist. I would love to see her as the subject of a top-class Wikipedia article, but at present there is a long way to go. The article has been put together by a number of editors (not including the PR nominator) and lacks cohesivenes. In my view I would say that it is flattered by a C-rating; I would not rate it above Start-class at present.

The rules of PR stipulate that the process is for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work. I think that much more work needs to done before this article is ready for review, and would highlight the following as key areas for action:-
 * The article needs expanding, to become a much more comprehensive account of a long and productive life.
 * An essential source (if there is a serious intention to develop a featured-quality article) is this book, a 2003 biography of Louise Bourgeois. The Guardian obit previously referred to is available here, and is another worthwhile source not used at the moment.
 * There are far too many verbatim quotations in the article. The "Legacy" section is entirely composed of lengthy quotes. All these need to be removed and replaced with paraphrases illustrated with short quotations of key phrases. Incidentally, the use of decorative quotation marks is frowned upon, and should be avoided.
 * In general, avoid presenting information in list form, especially in the middle of the article. The bibliography may be justifiable at the end of the article, but the other information should be presented within the text.
 * Citations should give details of sources; it is not necessary that they should contain long quotations from these sources as well.
 * There are other issues relating to the formatting of citations and references, but at the moment these are secondary to the requirement to work on the text.

My advice is that this article should be re-presented at PR when a significant part of the work indicated has been done. At that stage I will be very pleased to help with a full-scale detailed review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this, and the points. The lead is much too short, as is the whole article. A fair way to go before even GA. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)