Wikipedia:Peer review/The Knickerbocker/archive1

The Knickerbocker
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am a student in the Wikipedia Student Ambassador Program and this is my project this semester. I would like some feedback about how I can continue to improve this article and my editing skills in general.

Thanks, MelPav (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Impact" section comprises solely of one sub-section called "Environmental". Are there any other "impacts"? If not, then merge the two. maclean (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is a promising start. I have identified several areas which will benefit from further work, and also picked up some minor presentational points.
 * General comments (prose etc)
 * I'm not sure about the phrasing "one of the earliest proto-environmental magazines". The prefix "proto" generally implies undeveloped or primitive in character; judging by your "Environmental impact" section, the magazine's environmental agenda was quite well developed. Consider deopping "proto"
 * History section: consider how this might be expanded. If as you say the magazine was "the most influential literary publication of its time", there is surely more to be said, bearing in mind the period of US history in which it appears. There is very little "history" here; half the section consists of a list of contributors.
 * Name: In the listing of names it says that the Knickerbacker name was used from January through June 1833, which implies six issues under this name. In the subsequent text it says that the name was changed for the second issue; which is correct?
 * Content: Like the History section, this apppears to be rather sketchy. You say the magazine was devoted to the fine arts in particular, presumably meaning painting, sculpture, music, poetry etc; but the only content you give any detail about is environmental. On Hitchcock's poem I had to smile at the description "first ichnological poem". Are there many more in this poetic genre?
 * Environmental impact: This, the only detailed section in the article, emphasises the point I made above; lots of detail on environmentally-related content as compared with little specific on anything else. I am not criticising this section, merely observing that it contrasts in detail with other aspects of the magazine.
 * Image captions: You should extend the captions to  clarify the relationship of the images to the article. With the Diedrich Knickerbocker image you should explain that this is Darley's representation of Washington's fictional character - otherwise, a casual reader will assume him to be a real personage. The other captions could all be usefully extended, to be more informative.
 * References
 * ISBN missing from Nash (2001). You could add OCLC numberss to the pre-ISBN books by looking them up on Worldcat
 * Page range in ref 3 requires dash not hyphen
 * What makes Ref 13 a reliable, high-quality source? There is no indication as to authorship and it does not appear to be professionally published
 * Ref 21 publisher name omitted. This is a mirror site for Wikipedia, and therefore should not be used.
 * Ref 22: publisher name omitted
 * Ref 24: publisher name omitted.

Please ping my talkpage if you have any queries arising from my comments, or if you would like me to look at the article again. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)