Facebook

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FA soon. I'm looking specifically for copyediting help and suggestions on what content to keep or remove. I've put a lot of work into this article. The article originally looked like this, so it's come a long way since then. Gary King (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

References replaced. Gary King (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The previous peer review had comments from six different users - have they been contacted to see what they think of the current version? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has not changed much since they reviewed it. This current peer review is for copyediting issues before going through FAC, but I suppose I will contact the previous reviewers to see what they think. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs) It has certainly come a long way and it is definitely much improved! For a few things, I noted:

Getting closer to being ready, and would be nice to see an FA website article, so hope this helps (wanna tackle Neopets next)? :-P Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't play Neopets and never have. Gary King (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a joke :P Collectonian (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from La Pianista (talk · contribs)

Pretty good article...again, you're pressing me for critical things to say. I'm forced to nitpick. :-)

A truly outstanding article...wonderfully cited, and (hip, hip, hoorRAY!) all of the awkward sentences are gone. Bravissimo, and I beg for an encore! :-)

Thanks for the review! I've commented on some items and crossed out the ones that are straightforward. Gary King (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]