Wikipedia:Peer review/The Pirate Bay/archive1

The Pirate Bay
This peer review discussion has been closed. I feel this article is on good track. There's a couple of things that could be better molded, though, that would help push this article to FA status.
 * The raid section could be cut down a bit, due to the fact that there is already and existing article about this subject that is linked to.
 * The legal issues section may be able to have some "fluff" taken out of it, per the reason stated above.
 * The project chanology image doesn't seem to fit very well, although I under the purpose of having it. I'm afraid that removing to may cause some problems amongst other editors, but I'd to get an opinion on this.
 * Perhaps a new page for TPB blocking should be created so as the shorten the list a bit on the current page.

Overall, I feel this is a rather well written, well composed article but it has a few things here and there that I think should be looked at.

Regards, - Cam T undefined 12:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but not yet approaching featured quality. If I were re-reviewing for Good Article status, I could not pass it in its present state. I would at the least ask for repairs to the references and to the lead. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.


 * The lead is well-written but is not a true summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about "Technical details", "Projects", "Blocking", on "Incidents", for example. WP:LEAD has details.


 * The article seems to lack a coherent structure. It might be helpful to add a chronological "History" section just below the lead and use it to summarize the main events. Then the subsequent sections would be seen mostly as elaborations of the main events. That would give the article a kind of coherence that I think is needed. It might also help with decisions about how much material to use in each elaboration; the more important the historic event, the more full the elaboration. Since the article is in some sense a breaking news story with a continuing history, a chronological History section would make it easy to append new information in a timely and coherent way. Information such as "Funding" and "Technical details" that might not be chronological, could appear near the bottom of the article. Although the first half of the "Website setup" is probably of general interest, the technical details might not be and perhaps could be reduced to a note in a Notes section.


 * The first paragraph of the "Website section" is only half-sourced; if the one source given in the middle of the paragraph is meant to cover the whole paragraph, it should appear at the end rather than in the middle. Ditto for similar situations in the article. The second paragraph of the "Website setup" section is unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as for every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned.


 * Conversions such as 35,000 SEK to US$4,925.83 should be rounded for readability. I'd suggest rounding this one to "about US$5,000". Ditto for other conversions in the article.


 * The first sentence of the "Funding" section says, "The prosecution estimated in the 2009 trial from emails and screenshots... ", but nothing in the main text before this mentions a trial. This problem could be fixed by arranging historical events chronologically.


 * In the "Support campaign" section, the external link to filesharer.org should should be removed. If you want to use it, you should create an inline link to a citation in the "Reference" section. However, the url seems to be dead.


 * Generally it's good to either expand or merge extremely short paragraphs or sections to avoid a choppy layout.

Images
 * Be sure to check the image licenses to make sure the claims are verifiable. For example File:Fredrik Neij - 2006-06-03 (Jon Åslund).jpg links to itself rather than to its source. A fact-checker will not be able to tell from this whether the Creative Commons license is valid or not.
 * Images should be placed within the section they illustrate and should not normally overlap two sections.

References
 * Quite a few of the citations are malformed or incomplete. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.
 * Generally blogs and personal web sites are not reliable sources per WP:RS. For example, what makes Ernesto at Torrent Freak (citation 15) a reliable source?

Other
 * The tools at the top of this review page show that the images need alt text, that some of the citations have dead urls. WP:ALT has details about alt text.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)