Wikipedia:Peer review/Phaistos Disc/archive2

Phaistos Disc

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 April 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, Pergamino (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: very interesting artifact and article, here are some suggestions for improvement. 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; 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be more than one paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Lead expanded as suggested. Pergamino (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are decent photgraphs of both sides of the original disc later in the article, and the replica images are missing the diagonal strokes and have other changes, why not use the photos of the original in the info box?
 * Used side A photo in the box. Pergamino (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, give captions for the detail images in the gallery - even if it is just side A or side B.
 * Unfortunately, there is no info on the images about which side are these photos taken from. Pergamino (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Article needs more references, for example the second paragraph of the Discovery section has no refs - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Currently the article mixes two styles of refs (inline numbers and author and date). The WP:MOS says to pick one style of refs and use it consistently throughout.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * There are two tables that repeat all 45 characters - is there any reason why they cannot be combined?
 * The markup for tables is really difficult. I'll leave this to someone that may be able to do this. Pergamino (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the further reading seems like it could be converted into references.
 * A model article is helpful for ideas and examples to follow - Rongorongo is a WP:FA on a writing system which has not been deciphered and may be a useful model.
 * Thanks for the review. I'll be working on this and try to follow the useful suggestions. Pergamino (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)