Wikipedia:Peer review/Che Guevara/archive1

Che Guevara

This article has been up for FA twice, however, it got rejected both times. What I (and I'm sure others) want to know is what needs to be done to make such a nice-looking article into a featured article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I say use this image in the lead; it's more well known, if of lesser quality. Looks nicely referenced... And yes, reply to the objections of those who shot it down from FA. But the issue here is, I'm sorry to say—and you probably knew this anyway—is length. Length, length, length. Although I do not like the limit, nor do I like making you kill good content (move it elsewhere), 58k is just too long. I'm really sorry—it's a great article—but it's just too long. --HereToHelp (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm going to have to take that back; Diamond is FA and 6o something k. Although some trimming might be nice, go easy. What you should do is address the reasons why it failed its FA nomination. --HereToHelp (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the need to shorten the article, I branched off part of the article into Che Guevara's involvement in the Cuban Revolution. 204.8.195.187 15:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If length is the sticking point then consider branching off the photo gallery and trivia to a separate article. Those minor extras give the impression of an article in need of editing even though I can't point to any essay text that should go. I agree that the famous 1960 photo belongs at the top of the article. The captions aren't up to the quality of the rest of the writing. Many are too short. A few ramble. Caption style doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. A caption should enhance the reader's understanding of the main text. Some of these captions seem decorative. The Joan of Arc images and captions might illustrate what I mean. I agree this is very close to a successful featured article. The edges are a little rough - and rough in ways that a newcomer would spot sooner than a regular contributor. Step back from the text and skim for a change. Then compare the look and feel of successful featured articles. Best wishes for your fine efforts. This is very good writing. Maybe the third nomination will succeed. Durova 03:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References are all over the place. This needs a separate references section, where all of the references used are included, and then use notes to connect the text to the page in the reference. Including references in the "Guerrilla fighter" section doesn't make sense to me—if they were used to reference that section, put notes there and list the references in a separate section at the bottom. I'd also say get rid of the "gallery" section—all those images are already on Wikimedia commons (or they should be!) and there's a link to them on the page already. If you're especially attached to one or two of them, work them into the article. I've fixed many of the formatting issues, though there still may be some. I'd suggest moving the content about him playing chess and such to other sections, or expand that section. Also, I've renamed the Trivia section to Popular culture, since that's really what it's talking about. Probably will want more prose there. And the external links and further reading sections need to be cut down—further reading shouldn't have online resources in it, for one thing. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]