Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Plaid Cymru/archive1

History of Plaid Cymru

I've listed this article for peer review because… the artical needs other pairs of eyes commenting on flow, structure, and areas where more development is necessary. Additionally, sourcing and quality thereof.

Thanks, Drachenfyre 04:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jashiin

I can only comment on style points, sorry - I don't know much about the topic, and surely someone more experienced than me is needed to comment on such huge article. Nevertheless, here are some points:

References and citations have to be fixed in most places. The <ref> tag always goes after the punctuation mark, not before, ie. Blah blah blah.<ref>blah</ref>, not Blah blah blah<ref>blah</ref>. See WP:CITE and WP:FN.
Another point about references is that because many of them are from the same books/articles, you may want to create a section called "References" and another called "Notes" or "Footnotes". List the appropriate books (ie. Davies', McAllister's) in the "References" and use "Notes" for the actual notes. Citing Davies, for example, would then look like "Davies, 508", not "Davies, op cit, page 508", and it'd reduce article size. And while you're at it, you may also want to arrange the list of references into two or three columns.
Some sections and quotations need references: for example, the section "Rebranding & "Leadership" 2006" has none, and (upon returning, he wrote of Hitler in the Daily Express as "the greatest living German", "the George Washington of Germany") in "Pre-War" needs a reference (not necessarily the exact article in Daily Express, but perhaps a book where it is quoted).
I really don't know much about the subject of the article, but I think many people will find it suspicious (ie. at GA and FA) that the Davies book is used so extensively. Sometimes the same page is cited for several paragraphs - perhaps there's some other material available? Some material distributed by the party itself, maybe?

Style issues unrelated to references:

For an article this size, the lead is way too short. See WP:LEAD: you have to provide a working summary of the article.
Dates have to be edited according to WP:DATE - ie. individual years should not be linked, there should be no apostrophes (1950s instead of 1950's), – should be used instead of a simple dash when talking about time periods, full dates should be linked, etc.
All "see also" marks at the beginning of the article and in sections should be preceded by a colon to create a space before them, and there should be just for any number of links. Ie:

See also: Blah, Blah2

Instead of

See also: Blah

Miscellaneous stuff:

"It was in this climate that the two groups met. " - which two groups? They're only mentioned in the lead, and the lead is simply a summary. You have to mention the groups in the first section before making such remark. (or perhaps I didn't understand the first paragraphs..) DONE Drachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "wrote Dr. Davies" remarks should be avoided, especially in this case, since Davies is your main source, and your only source for many statements. Try to reword his sentences instead of quoting directly, and simply add references as usual.
Generally, I wouldn't create such small sections as "Early broadcasting campaigns". They clutter up the article, making it harder to read, they will probably never be expanded, and they can be easily incorporated into other sections. NOTEDDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the extra columns doing in the tables?
In "Pre-War", "Author G A Williams " should be "Author G. A. Williams" DONEDrachenfyre (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous bits and pieces of text that should either be reworded or rewritten entirely, very small paragraphs that could be incorporated into bigger ones, etc. In other words, copy-editing is required. Try requesting a copy-edit from WP:LOCE - that is, when the article complies with the style (and content) requirements listed on that page.
Speaking of those requirements, have you tried asking for help at the Wales WikiProject's talk page? Someone who is knowledgeable on the topic may add helpful remarks, and also perhaps challenge some of the statements in order to work the article up to NPOV (as I said, I don't really know anything about the topic to comment on that; I just assume that any political topic is bound to raise some NPOV issues, especially when only a single person works on the article).

Otherwise, you did a fantastic job for what seems to me an important topic. The length of the article alone is amazing! I know its not pleasant at all to go through all that material fixing the style issues (I've went through such things myself!), but believe me, it will give the article a much more professional look and feel. Best of luck with it, Jashiin 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Jashiin! I appreciate your review and will get started straight away on the edits. Some of the smaller sections such as Early broadcasting campigns I do have every intention on expanding (and did so with Census information, but I am awaiting a book on broadcasting in Wales by John Davies). But I take your point. The early sections are heavily reliant on John Davies, it is true. I will get additional sources to compliment and balance that. But Davies was so elequent! lol. Thankx again and Im getting started on this this weekend!Drachenfyre (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]