| Revision as of 10:14, 29 April 2009 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits comment on automated peer review← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:30, 5 May 2009 edit undoMoni3 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,282 edits →Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology: short reviewNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ;Comment on automated peer review | ;Comment on automated peer review | ||
| I looked over the ], nothing much to address from there. The lede conforms with ], the article uses appropriate linking, an infobox is not necessary, and the article utilizes all available relevant material from ] after exhaustive researching. ''']''' (]) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | I looked over the ], nothing much to address from there. The lede conforms with ], the article uses appropriate linking, an infobox is not necessary, and the article utilizes all available relevant material from ] after exhaustive researching. ''']''' (]) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| '''From Moni3:''' | |||
| * Is there no reception or critical analysis of the book? If you're planning to take it to FAC, that would be a major obstacle. | |||
| * I think the article so far is well-written and comprehensive until that reception and analysis point. What are your plans there? --] (]) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:30, 5 May 2009
Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved WP:GA quality status, looking for input to help improve writing style further, tweak prose, etc. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Notes left for Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Scientology and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Books. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment on automated peer review
I looked over the automated peer review, nothing much to address from there. The lede conforms with WP:LEAD, the article uses appropriate linking, an infobox is not necessary, and the article utilizes all available relevant material from reliable sources after exhaustive researching. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
From Moni3:
- Is there no reception or critical analysis of the book? If you're planning to take it to FAC, that would be a major obstacle.
- I think the article so far is well-written and comprehensive until that reception and analysis point. What are your plans there? --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)