Wikipedia:Peer review/Neopets/archive1

NeoPets
The previous Good Article and Featured Article nominations failed. However, I think the article has improved considerably since then, and, with a little work, should qualify for Good Article. I am willing to collaborate with other editors to improve NeoPets into a Good Article.

The main objections in the Featured Article nomination were use of weasel words, lack of citations, the lead section and POV issues.

The use of weasel words, is, I'm afraid, something we cannot avoid. These criticisms are user opinion and most of them are true. It is very difficult to find reliable sources which detail these criticisms. The best resource would be anti-NeoPets sites, forums and statements by top players. However, these will not be considered reliable sources. In addition, I have spotted cases of editors adding names of famous Neopians as examples to prevent weasel-wording. The names were quickly removed.

The most improved aspect of the article is the citations. The number of citations has grown, and a reasonable percentage are third-party references. Although we can still improve in this area, I think it should pass the Good Article criteria for being referenced.

As for the lead section, this will be relatively easy to fix, compared with the weasel wording. It will take me some time and discussions to decide what should go into the lead section. Feedback and suggestions are most appreciated.

Finally, for the POV issues, I do not spot any egregious POV issues in the article. There may be some more subtle issues, but these are beyond my ability, and other editors should work on them.

I hope to collaborate with other editors to make this a Good Article.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Needs a complete rewrite and NPOVing, article can be very controversial. Its best to let the article stay decent. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)