Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Peer review/Fouke Monster

Fouke Monster
This article has been significantly expaned upon and needs both peer revieing and re-rating (no longer a stub) perfectblue 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Zagalejo
A few suggestions: Overall, though, it's a nice article, and it looks like you put a lot of hard work into it. Keep up the good work! Zagalejo 01:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)I'm a bit confused about the "First reported" section of the infobox. What precisely is the difference between the pre-1970s "local legends" and the reports from the 1970s?
 * 2)What do "North" and "East" refer to in the intro section?
 * 3)There are a lot of single-sentence paragraphs. You should try to cluster some of them together.
 * 4)There are also a few minor typos, sentence fragments, etc. (I could probably take care of these myself, though).
 * 5)Some of the citations seem to be jumbled. For example, ref #22 is supposed to link to the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, but it points to amazon.com instead.

Cheers for the input, I'll act on the imediate bits right away.

1) First published report/lots of unpublished rumors (Great grandpappy saw it back in 56, or was it 65.....) 2) The creature was seen in Boggy Creek, in 71-74, and in locations hundreds of K to the North and East in 78/ 3) I'm on it 4) I'm rubbish at proof reading, maybe somebody else can help? 5) Will look into it

perfectblue 07:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've quickly looked through it a couple of times and tried to fix any errors I could find. If I have some more time later, I can look through the article more carefully. Zagalejo 14:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

InShaneee
I went ahead and re-rated this as a very nice B class. Firstly, I'd move the Chronology section up before the Appearance section. Secondly, I'd definatly put the 'pre-1971' section at the top of Chronology, and perhaps title the rest 'post-1971'. In the Hoax section, that quote needs to be worked into the paragraph, rather than standing out as a bullet point. In the 'in film' section, I'd recommend cutting the sequal sections down to just a sentence or two mention each, since not all of that is relevant to the creature, and because they do have their own pages. That book mentioned in the 'see also' section needs to be either moved to 'references' or removed, whichever is appropriate. Finally, the external links section needs to be brought up to code (ie, this format: Title of link ). Otherwise, as is plain to see, a truly breathtaking expansion! --InShaneee 21:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)