Wikipedia:Peer review/Prague Spring/archive1

Prague Spring

 * Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is of course far from perfect, but I would like to get it to GA status eventually and would like to know what others think should be improved. The article was not long ago split into 2: Prague Spring and Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) and also contains another relevant page called Normalization (Czechoslovakia), so please check those for additional info, also tips on formatting would be appreciated

Thanks,

The Dominator (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Jayron32
Just going to run down the issues as I read the article, keeping the good article standards in mind as I do so. That ought to give you a start. If you have any more specific questions, or need any other help, let me know. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 02:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is inadequately short. A lead section should fully summarize the article.  This one is OK, but it could be expanded to include, for example, some of the aftermath information.  see WP:LEAD.
 * The article as a whole is inadequately referenced. Statements of opinion, superlative statements, and otherwise contentious information should always be referenced; in addition a good rule of thumb is to reference each paragraph to where it comes from.  The only section that has any kind of reasonable referencing is the last one (Cultural impact).
 * In addition, references should have full bibliographic information. You can either use the citation templates, or put the information in plain text; but all references should contain such information as authors, publishers, publication dates; and for websites access dates.
 * As a whole, it is probably "broad" enough for GA; but if you ever plan to take this for FA, please consider expanding it quite a bit. Also, consider finding and using print references.  For an historic event like this, there are likely OODLES of books to use to expand this article.  Its a rather short article, and there is LOTS of room to expand, with more detailed information.  As I said, it would probably pass GA at this level, but consider making a visit to the local library, and finding sources to expand it for an eventual FA run.
 * I am not terribly good at the finer points of language and grammar; consider asking for a review from the League of Copyeditors. They do excellent work; generally I use them for the "final polish" when I am done researching and writing an article.


 * Alright, thanks!--The Dominator (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Review Round 2: The article is looking much better. The referencing is really becoming much more comprehensive.  There are a few more tweaks needed before this would pass a GA review, but they are becoming relatively minor compared to the earlier problems I noted above.
 * The references need proper formatting. The placement of references looks very good.  It looks, from a cursory glance, that every thing that I believe should be referenced has been.  However, properly cited references have the following format:
 * For books: LastName, FirstName (Date). Title of Book.  Publisher City, Publisher Name, page #'s, ISBN#
 * For print periodicals and journals: LastName, FirstName (Date). "Article Title", Title of Journal. Issue& Volume of Journal, page #'s.
 * For websites: LastName, FirstName (Date). "Article Title(linked to URL)", Title of Website, publisher of website, retreival date.
 * Consider using the citation templates to organize this information. For example, at reference #26, you call it "Radio CZ article on Tom Stoppard."  This is inadequate.  using the cite web template, like this:
 * The above will give us this:
 * if the citation templates are too cumbersome, you can format all of these in plain text, but I like using them (see WP:CITET for a full list) because it does the formatting for you. All references should be brought up to proper format.
 * While we're at it, there are a few inaccuracies and other problems I spotted. Tom Stoppard is a playwrite, and "Rock 'n' Roll" is a play of his.  It looks from your article like he was a musician of some sort.  Move it to the Literature paragraph below it.  Also, the "See Also" section should ONLY contain links to articles you haven't linked to already.  The Soviet Invasion, Normalization, and Dubcek articles are already linked, so shouldn't be included here.
 * If you fix up these few problems, this would be GA ready. Good luck, and if you need any more help, just drop me a note!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Sources: By the way, you can ask me questions here. I have watchlisted this page now, so there is no need to ask on my talk page every time.  I will see the question here and respond here.  Now, back to the referencing.  The important thing about referencing is that if the information exists, it is your obligation to include it.  If it doesn't exist, well, then you can't say anything about it.  Now, many reliable sources don't have authors.  For example, the phone transcript of the Brezhnev conversation that you cited.  Its an AWESOME source, but it obviously has no author.  No bother, just make the reference as complete as possible.  for that one, I would use:
 * Which will give you:
 * With regard to the reliability of sources, having no author is not necessarily a concern, but having no author, publisher, copyright date, or ANY sort of atribution may be a problem. Just look at each source individually, and say "Would anyone have a reason to doubt the validity of this" Be honest with yourself.  Generally, if something is true enough and important enough, enough people have covered it such that there is usally more than one place to find that information.  Finding backup on your sources is generally a good idea anyways.  If there are any more questions, just let me know! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help, I'm just waiting for a copyedit from one of the peer review volunteers that has agreed to help and it's off to GA review. I'm a little concerned about the lack of images in this article, though; we had one before, but it was deleted.--The Dominator (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good articles do not require images. They only require that images, where used, are used appropriately.  If no freely availible images exist, then oh well... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to the reliability of sources, having no author is not necessarily a concern, but having no author, publisher, copyright date, or ANY sort of atribution may be a problem. Just look at each source individually, and say "Would anyone have a reason to doubt the validity of this" Be honest with yourself.  Generally, if something is true enough and important enough, enough people have covered it such that there is usally more than one place to find that information.  Finding backup on your sources is generally a good idea anyways.  If there are any more questions, just let me know! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help, I'm just waiting for a copyedit from one of the peer review volunteers that has agreed to help and it's off to GA review. I'm a little concerned about the lack of images in this article, though; we had one before, but it was deleted.--The Dominator (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good articles do not require images. They only require that images, where used, are used appropriately.  If no freely availible images exist, then oh well... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good articles do not require images. They only require that images, where used, are used appropriately.  If no freely availible images exist, then oh well... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs are looking MUCH better, but it looks like you missed #'s 1, 2, 3 and 12, which still lack full bibliographic information. Don't forget about those!  Other than that, once Marksell has finished his copyedit, this looks like it is ready for WP:GAN.  Just fix those refs before you nominate it... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You think you could look at 1, 2 and 3 yourself? 'Cause unless I'm missing something I don't see anymore bibliographic info. As for #12 I'll see what I can do, but I am using the manifesto itself as a reference to what the manifesto says, is that OK? And where do I find bibliographic info for something that's forty years old?--The Dominator (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. As far as the Manifesto, is it republished in a book or something?  If so, you may want to use that book as the source, and say something like "Yada yada Manifesto by So and So, republished in..." and give the book publication info... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did what I could with the references. That Dubcek reference (3) is a tad sketchy.  It'd probably pass GA, but still, are there NO OTHER Dubcek biographies (even print, online, ANYTHING) that is more reliable?  I had to really dig to come up with ANY informtion on the publisher or source for that one, and I didn't see anything there that I would not expect to find at a more reliable place.  Just an idea.  The other two (1 and 2) also required a little digging, but at least those looked a little better.  Even those, I wouldn't give up entirely on trying to finding alternate sources.  The first source you find is not always the best... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the manifesto: Currently I live in a small town and the local library is... well, terrible so I don't really have access to books at the moment, I did a Google books search and all I could find were vague references to the manifesto, although it played a fairly important role during the reforms. As for a biography of Dubcek I'm sure there are better ones, and I'll look, in fact there are probably better printed ones that are already referenced in this article at some point.--The Dominator (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Remember, there's no rush on this.  If it takes a few days or weeks to dig up your original source of the Manifesto, so be it, or if it takes longer to find a better source for the ones i noted, so be it... Just don't forget about it, but you look to care enough about this, and I trust it will get done as soon as feasible.  Remember, Wikipedia is in no rush... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)