Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia/archive5

Wikipedia

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 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it has serious potential to become Featured again, and a peer review would help confirm/deny/prepare for this.

Thanks, Cybercobra (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've planning to make some major revisions, but I never got to do it. (My user page contains links to academic papers or websites that might be used as references.) Here are few changes that must be made:

Expand the cultural impacts of Wikipedia in the lead (in the context of web 2.0, crowdsourcing, all jazzs.)
Discuss the roles of Jimmy Wales; e.g., how much authority does he have?
Epistemology of Wikipedia [1]
Discuss how Wikipedia has been killing traditional encyclopedias.
Expand discussion of a war between deletionists and inclusionists
Mention paid edits

Overall, the sections on reliability and community need more refinement. For example, the reliability section contains somehow lengthly quotes, which are not particularly significant nor illuminating. -- Taku (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

I've been looking it over and find so many weasel word, POV, glitches, etc., that I can't state an opinion without trying to fix it. It really needs a good house-cleaning. I have no idea what forking is supposed to mean (Citing fears of commercial advertising and lack of control...). It's a forking mystery. Hope you and other involved editors will have a fresh-eyed look.

Regards content and sourcing, the article looks pretty wonderful. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fork" as in Fork (software development). Term is now wikilinked for glossary purposes. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but a natural language explanation is reasonable to provide. There are lots of places where the article suddenly lurches into geekspeak. Consider that as part of an overall critique. I've cleaned up some where I understood the geekspeak. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with some discussion of Wikipedia's style (fact-driven, informative, slightly dry), and perhaps a little toning down of the Wikipedia-is-wonderful POV. (Any chance of a review in return of the h2g2 article?) AlexAshman (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]