Wikipedia:Peer review/Max Weber/archive2

Max Weber
Note: First submitted to Peer review/Max Weber/archive1.

All concerns from the last (summer) peer review have been adressed. Do you have any further comments or can this be moved to featured candidates now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Much of what is there is very good. But also much of the article is just a list of his works.  The standard comment made in the featured article discussion is that this should be moved out to a list that is linked in the article.  Once those are out the article is a bit short.  If he is one of the founders of sociology is there not more to write about him? Also, were the "resources" used the write the article? If so they are normally called references. The lead section is a little short.  There are a number of one sentence paragraphs; those need to be either removed, merged, or expanded. There are also a lot of wikilinks to things that perhaps should not be articles.  Anything that is purely a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedic concept should not get a wikilink. Examples include "descriptive".  Similarly some concepts are just not notable enough to have their own articles, so they should not be linked as well.  I'll leave it to you to decide some of those. Just the shear volume of red links leads me to believe that perhaps many of them do not in fact need to be their own article.  See WP:VFD for some of the things that are commonly not considered worthy of articles. - Taxman 00:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Tnx for your comments. I moved the list off and expaned the article (it is atm 31kb long even without the list). Resources renamed to references. I merged some short paragraphs but honestly don't know what more can be added to the lead. As for red links, I think that they should be made into an article, although I did remove few that would only point to Wiktionary stuff. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, the biggest thing I see left is the one and two sentence paragraphs. Its a simple but obvious error in good prose style.  Also the link in the intro to economy is incorrect.  Do you want economics or political economy?  As far as expanding the lead section, it should summarize the whole article and be 2-3 paragraphs long.  See Guide to writing better articles. Good lead sections are hard to write, but they are key to a great article.  Think of it as everything you would say about the man and his accomplishments if those 2-3 paragraphs were all someone would read. - Taxman 13:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)