Wikipedia:Peer review/Eugene Izzi/archive1
- 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 October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
It's difficult to write an article about a reasonably obscure author who's been deceased more than 10 years. However, it's an interesting story and I was shocked to discover Izzi did not have a Wikipedia page.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Bundito (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Izzi sounds interesting, and I might have to try one of his books. Here are some suggestions for improving the article.
- It would be good to provide sources for the claims in this article that are unsourced. The "Background" section and the first half of the "Writing career" section are unsourced.
- Sources should include the author's name (if known), as well as the title, publisher, date of publication (if known), the url (if any), and the access date (if the citation includes an url). Instead of trying to remember what goes into a citation or how to arrange the data, it's often easier to use templates in the "cite" family. Please see WP:CIT for details.
- An infobox with a free- or fair-use image would add interest to the page. See Ed McBain for an example of how this might look.
- The lead should summarize the whole article. The ideal lead briefly covers the main points covered in the main text, and it doesn't cover material not mentioned in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
- Per WP:MOSNUM, dates in the main text are no longer autoformatted. I ran a script to de-link them.
- Nothing in the main text should be bolded except Eugene Izzi in the lead.
- Orphan paragraphs consisting of one sentence are generally frowned upon. It's good to either develop them or to merge them with other paragraphs.
- More material about Izzi is available on-line from reliable sources. Book reviews are often a good source for material about authors. Here's one I found just now by doing a Google search that led me to Time magazine. Since sources sometimes have different insights or may disagree with one another, it's good practice to check as many as you can and choose the best. Inevitably, some will have surprises.
If you have questions about my brief review, please post them here. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)