Wikipedia:Peer review/Overman Committee/archive1

Overman Committee

 * 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 June 2009.
 * 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because since it was rated as a Good Article I have only improved it further, reorganizing it, adding more info, and adding more references. General improvements overall would be great, but one thing in particular that would be good to know is if the images of the article are used properly (i.e. are their licensings right). Warning: the subject is kind of (extremely) obscure; it's just a random article I created from the requested articles page.

Thanks, Bsimmons 666  (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I had never heard of this committee before. This is interesting, but assuming the next step is WP:FAC, it needs a fair amount of work and expansion to be ready for FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind.
 * The images seem to be free with one possible exception. If something was published before 1923 it is free, or if it is the work of the US Government. This covers all but the Russian Revolution image. The license there is murky, but it seems like it is the easiest image to swap out if needed.
 * The refs used look reliable and my guess is that there is a lot more information on the subject in the books cited. One of the FA criteria is that the article be comprehensive about its subject - see WP:WIAFA. I think this needs some work to get to that point - specifics on places that need more information follow.
 * There really isn't a lot of info more than the stuff that is already in there. I mined Google Books for every single source I could get, and from those sources I picked out as much info as was possible.


 * A caption identifies three of the members of the committee, but the names of all five should be early in the article (five signers of the report are listed but not identified as all of the committee members). Why were they chosen?
 * Clarified, but also they were not 'chosen' for the committee, I do not believe. They chose themselves to be on it for, likely, unknown reasons.


 * More background on why the committee (or is it a subcommittee as described later) was formed is also needed (why brewers?). We are told when it began hearings, but not when it was formed.
 * This perplexed me as well. I believe the committee was not very notable until it began investigations into Bolshevism. I have not seen a single source that listed the date of formation. jk I found a source after some intensive googling. Bsimmons 666  (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

**Why was it named the Overman committee? Why was Overman chair? Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short sections as well. These should be combined with others or expanded where possible to improve the flow.
 * Article has some typos - I read for comprehension, but noticed "an" where "any" was meant.
 * I think the See also links in the Background section are a bit much - probably would only link the first red scare article (they are all linked in the section itself).
 * Watch for WP:OVERLINK Senator Overman is linked three times (once in the lead, twice in captions).
 * Already did two :). Bsimmons 666  (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)