This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I nominated it for FAC, and it was said that there were not enough references, and the article should be put under Peer Review before it becomes an FA. The whole article could use a "PR wipedown".
Thanks, JoshE3 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for working on this. I love Lego and would like to see this get to FA, but agree that there are serious problems with this before it could become GA, let along FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- References are the biggest problem. The article needs more references, for example there are 29 "citation needed" tags, pretty much all of which need refs.
- There are whole sections without refs - for example the Video games and Official website sections have no refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and at least the end of every paragraph need a ref.
- The references that are there are incompelte in some cases. For example, 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
- As one examples of a problem ref, current ref 4 is just "Lego Specifications" linked to the website http://orionrobots.co.uk/Lego+Specifications - no publisher is given, and the date of the webpage needs to be included.
- An even greater concern is that some of the sources used are not reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. What makes orionrobots.co.uk a reliable source, for example? Is there any indication of editorial oversight or sources for the material?
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the current lead is not a sufficient overview and needs to be expanded.
- 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. Please see WP:LEAD
- The article is WP:OVERLINKed - do readers really need a link to castle or train or pirate to better understand the Lego article?
- There are also quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt the flow of the article. These should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded.
- I worry that the images of creative works like the Lego T. Rex sculpture are copyrighted and thus not free images (not only does the photo have to be free, but if it is of an art work, the art has to be freely licenesed too).
- Use "double quotes" not 'single quotes' (unless it is a quote within a quote)
- The header "Today" is not a good choice - first off, avoid vague time terms (as they can quickly become out of date). Second the "Today" section has sentences on things in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, which is hardly today.
- The prose is decent bu not great - look at WP:WIAFA for the FA criteria. The most difficult criteria for most articles at FA to meet is a professional level of English.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia: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 ><>°° 02:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are no FAs under WikiProject Toys, but there are several WP:GAs at Category:GA-Class Toys articles which may be good models for getting this to GA (it would be a quick fail at WP:GAN now - lack of refs). For WP:FA models, perhaps Chess or Dungeons & Dragons or History of the board game Monopoly would be useful models. With all models, be aware that standrds have gotten tighter with time and more recent GAs or FAs would be more useful as model articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]