Wikipedia:Peer review/Starships!/archive1

Starships!
There has been ongoing discussion, sometimes heated, concerning layout, notability, and other issues. A fresh set of eyes and a few helpful suggestions might point us all in the right direction. It's a good article I think, but maybe it could be better. I'm looking for honest suggestions to improve the article. Matt Brennen 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it appears that this article is up for AfD due to lack of sources and notability issues. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Taprobanus
1. Use WP:MOS and then WP:CITE on all controversial or conflicting information (so that we can avoid heated discussions)

2. References, Notes, and External links have to be properly sub divided.

3. Add a See also section to indicate linkages with other related articles.

4. Shorten the lead per WP:LEAD, include negative information if there is considerable critisism

That's it for now. Keep up the good work Taprobanus 02:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, going to work on it. Matt Brennen 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wafulz
There are absolutely no secondary sources. I'm not even sure this article would survive Articles for deletion, let alone gain much from a Peer Review. If the article is worth keeping, it needs a full rewrite. For example, the "Supporters" section reads like someone describing it from a member perspective- ie, a primary source. The writing in the article is pretty poor. Sentences like "Unfortunately the cook there has no idea what human food is supposed to look like or taste like, and the results are hilarious." make this read like a fan review more than an encyclopedia article. --Wafulz 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Am making changes as you suggest. Thank you! Matt Brennen 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly wouldn't recommend working on this article unless it gets reliable sources. If it were listed for deletion today, it would not survive. Assuming they exist, start from sources, then rewrite the article. --Wafulz 05:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)