Talk:Frederick Buechner: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:41, 18 February 2010

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

Peer Review of Frederick Buechner

I've done a lot of work on this one and addressed the suggestions from Carcharoth - I'd love to get a peer review/outside perspective. Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.141.178 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Carcharoth 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in reviewing an article on novelist/theologian Frederick Buechner. I am a fan and it seems that some professionals have helped write the article, but I wanted to help get it to FA level... what do you think the article needs next?

Thanks,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Buechner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.22.54 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good. "The Buechner Institute at King College" section is stubby. The external links section needs formatting. Quotes section looks the wrong approach for that sort of thing. I've reassessed as C-class, and I think if you ask for a proper review, you can get this assessed as B-class, or GA-class. FA-class needs a bit more work. I would try a formal request for peer review and keeping asking around. Copying this to the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a lot of work has gone into this article, Godric. I would suggest that the lead is too long, and would consider placing the part about his awards elsewhere. The long list of quotes is probably unnecessary – these are available elsewhere, and I would question their place in an encylopedic article. I'll have a look at it in more detail in the next couple of days, and will make further suggestions at the weekend. Best wishes – Agendum (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:34, 8 December 2009 edit 64.119.141.178 (talk) No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:41, 18 February 2010 edit undo Agendum (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 4,379 edits →Peer Review of Frederick Buechner: Response Next edit →
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:Lead looks good. "The Buechner Institute at King College" section is stubby. The external links section needs formatting. Quotes section looks the wrong approach for that sort of thing. I've reassessed as C-class, and I think if you ask for a proper review, you can get this assessed as B-class, or GA-class. FA-class needs a bit more work. I would try a formal request for peer review and keeping asking around. Copying this to the article talk page. [[User:Carcharoth\|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth\|talk]]) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)		:Lead looks good. "The Buechner Institute at King College" section is stubby. The external links section needs formatting. Quotes section looks the wrong approach for that sort of thing. I've reassessed as C-class, and I think if you ask for a proper review, you can get this assessed as B-class, or GA-class. FA-class needs a bit more work. I would try a formal request for peer review and keeping asking around. Copying this to the article talk page. [[User:Carcharoth\|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth\|talk]]) 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

			::Clearly, a lot of work has gone into this article, Godric. I would suggest that the lead is too long, and would consider placing the part about his awards elsewhere. The long list of quotes is probably unnecessary – these are available elsewhere, and I would question their place in an encylopedic article. I'll have a look at it in more detail in the next couple of days, and will make further suggestions at the weekend. Best wishes – [[User:Agendum\|Agendum]] ([[User talk:Agendum\|talk]]) 22:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)