Wikipedia:Peer review/Reader's advisory/archive1

Reader's advisory

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 July 2008.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get input from librarians and non-librarian editors on the article.

Thanks, JohnRussell (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

I'm actually an academic librarian, so I believe I'm relatively qualified to review this article. :) I see where this article is going, and it's definitely a notable subject as far as librarian studies goes. However, it needs quite a bit of work in order to be fully comprehensive. Here are some thoughts to consider that pertain to the lead, only. From the lead you should be able to rework the entire article.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead (or introductory) section is meant to be a summary of the entire article. A lot of information in the lead is overly detailed or not simplified enough. Most of it also does not appear in the body of the paragraph.

In the very first line, define in the simplest terms possible what reader's advisory is. "Reader's advisory is a service that involves suggesting fiction and nonfiction titles to a reader through direct or indirect means."
Second, where is it most often used? Public and academic libraries as well as bookstores?
Who is giving the advice? Professionals? By what means? Databases, personal knowledge?
What constitutes as direct or indirect means?
What is the history of this service? How has it evolved (i.e., internet advisory services such as What should I read next?) over time? What is its legacy?
Perhaps most importantly, how is this service notable (see WP:NOTE)? What are the benefits? Think outside of the personal (someone wants a good book to read) and think more professionally. Do sources say anything about increasing public service output, patronage, etc?
Leave the explicit example (Matilda) out of the lead; if you explain things well enough, you won't need such an example!

For more general comments:

The "History" section should come first and be expanded, as the template says. Sources, sources, sources. Librarians love them and so do Wikipedia. :)
Sections like "Questions to consider asking in the readers advisory interview" and "Readers Advisory Resources" make the article seem more like a reference guide than an encyclopedic article. The information can be worked into other sections, but it needs to have a focus. Again, the article should define and describe the process, not actually do it.
The images need captions/explanations.
Remember that everything within the article must be cited, but items that are in the lead (which theoretically appear later on in the body) do not generally need to be cited. Refs should be from reliable, third party published sources.
Also remember that citations must be formatted correctly as per WP:CITE and should include pertinent information such as author, publisher, published date, and access date. For citation templates, which are not required but are very helpful, see WP:CITET.

I hope these ideas have helped. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 15:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]