Wikipedia:Peer review/Oba Chandler/archive1

Oba Chandler

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is on the verge of becoming a good article and a future Featured article it just needs that last push. I would like for it get an overall review in search of improvements and I would also like those who want to,to contribute with fixing the sources and perhaps find better sources for some parts of the article. So that we soon can get this article up for featured article nomination again. Thanks, --Judo112 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

{ Comments from Brianboulton

This article needs very considerable attention. Sadly, it is not on the verge of becoming a good article, and has no chance of getting promoted unless some very basic things are done.
 * First, the article needs to be structured properly. At the moment there are far too many very short sections (some of just a single sentence). A rational restructuring would organise the main text after the lead into perhaps four sections, as follows:-
 * Background, comprising the sections presently entitled "Facts leading up to the crime", "Speculation about the crime itself" and "The discovery of the bodies".
 * Investigation, consisting of the sections presently called "Subsequent investigation", "Facts that lead (led?) to Chandler" and "Witnesses for the prosecution"
 * Trial, consisting of "Chandler's testimony" and "Verdict and sentencing"
 * Media coverage: this section will need attention, but for the moment can stand on its own.
 * The bullet-point list headed "Features and background" should disappear, with the facts it lists being absorbed into the appropriate main sections, mainly "Background" and "Investigation".
 * I have not looked at this stage at the quality of the sources, but every single in-line citation needs to be properly formatted. Go to WP:citation templates to learn the correct format; it is the "cite web" template you need. If you can't work out from that what you need to do, look at other articles and see how they do it.
 * You probably need to familiarise yourself more with the Manual of Style WP:MOS, to improve your grasp of general presentation issues.

Until the above matters are attended to, I don't see much point in commenting on the prose, but if you're prepared to tackle the above I'll be happy to look at the prose and perhaps suggests ways of improving it.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)