Wikipedia:Peer review/Website governance/archive1

Website governance
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like another editor with some academic knowledge and practical expertise in the topic of website governance to review the content and suggest where improvements might be made. (And I'd like to see it on its way through to GA and FA status.)

Thanks, Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - as it is now, it is quite short, so there is not a lot to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to evntual WP:GAN or WP:FAC. 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and should be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - this can also be a good way to expand the lead.
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * Make sure that all refs used are relaible sources (RS) - for example blogs very seldom meet the RS criteria, so is this a relibale source? Or what makes [this a RS? Do they list sources they use or have a reputation for fact checking?
 * 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
 * If a ref is repeated, the }ref name =" trick can be used (so current refs 2 and 10 by SHane Diffily seem to be the same and could be combined). Please ask on my tlak page if you do not understand how to do this.
 * There are some WP:MOS issues - do not use ampersands unless it is in a direct quote (spell out "and" instead)
 * Spell out abbreviations like DRM, so Digital rights management (DRM), but only if you plan to use the abbreviation again
 * Identify people by more than jus their last name on first mention, so "Candi Harrison" not just "Harrison" (last name only is fine for subsequent mentions)
 * Figure is too small to read - is it freely licensed? Looks as it it was taken from somebody's website, which would be a copyright problem
 * Article is quite short and I think it needs to be expanded. Broad coverage is a GA Criterion and comprehensivenes is a FA criterion.
 * See also section does not follow [WP:See also (for one thing no red links allowed, for another See alsos generally do not link to articles already linked in this article)
 * Some very basic terms are linked, like "staff" and do not need to be - please see WP:OVERLINK