Wikipedia:Peer review/Llama/archive1

Llama

Thank you for taking your time to review this article. I am initially looking for a beginner's grade for the article and guidance to eventually GA and then FA status. All constructive criticisms are welcome. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Verisimilus T

Hi, there's quite a bit to say about this article, My main concern is that it reads very little like an encyclopaedia. A couple of brief points:

lede

The lede strikes me as a little odd. Rather than informing me what a llama is, you've told me what it's not... Have a look at WP:LEDE, which advises that the lede provides a succinct summary of the ensuing article.

First draft of first 3 paragraphs complete. Please review at your leisure and rip apart as you see fit. I reviewed your link and also reviewed several other animal articles that have either received grades or are being promoted. The format of the lead paragraphs are generally in this order: 1) quick intro, 2) about the animal, 3) a bit of history. I tried to stay in the intro-format of other articles. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

This strikes me as quite a heavy start to the article, dropping me straight into specialist language which the average reader is unlikely to follow. Could the information perhaps be better conveyed in a graphical fashion?

Characteristics

Again, does not read like an encyclopaedia - more like a taxonomist's handbook.

Both Classification and Characteristics are from the original scanned article. I'm digging for a cite. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order

I'd perhaps move Classification later in the article, as it is arguably of less key importance to what a llama is, or why I should be interested in them. I think it would be fair to suggest that most casual readers would be most interested in characteristics, behaviour and mating - maybe these sections should come earlier, to make the reader want to know more than they came for.

In popular culture

As well as a "see main article", you should include a brief summary of that article in the main one. Again, draw the reader in - make them want to click that blue link!

Added intro para. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be concise: Wikipedia is (unfortunately, to my thinking) an encyclopaedia, not a collection of knowledge. I wouldn't expect a paper encyclopaedia to have a list of the diameters of different types fur, or nutritional requirements. If you think the information is crucial to our understanding of llamas, it would be wise to explain why in the article - I must admit to being slightly confused as to the reason for its inclusion. Maybe just a sentence such as Llama fur is much thicker than that of sheep, making fabrics made from llamas more scratchy would be of more use than the table? There are a few areas in the article which I think the painful decision to trim unnecessary information would improve the article as a whole. It's always nice if you can follow an article without having to stop and follow links in order to keep up.
Behaviour: This section is written in many short, simple sentences. It could benefit from a rewrite in order to improve its flow. Further, it does not come across in an encyclopaedic tone.
Testing for pregnancy: reads like instructions from a vet's handbook... Also, perhaps goes into unnecessary detail.
Fossil llamas: Perhaps this would be better housed in the "history" section? And few readers will be geologists - I'd explain the significance of the Tertiary, etc, in the article.
Reproduction: Is made up of many short sections. I'd remove some section headings and go for a coherent paragraph, but you may want to expand constituent sections instead.
Breeding situations: Incorporate into text - you need at least to use full sentences.

Feel free to address those points - I'll happily review the article more thoroughly at a later date. But your first priority should definitely to be to attain a more encyclopaedic tone that is accessible and instantly engaging to an uneducated reader. Verisimilus T 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]