Wikipedia:Peer review/Girl/archive1

Girl[edit]

This article was WP:COTW last week, and I want to continue the momentum toward featured article. I know it still needs more depth, though, so I would welcome suggestions from experienced Wikipedians.Mamawrites 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three basic improvements that will need to be made are: a longer lead, more references, and proper copyright tags on all the images. - SimonP 23:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
the etymology section overwhelms the rest of the article and there is a marked Western and contemporary bias -Acjelen 01:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's some really good information here, but lots of problems, too. The prose needs thorough copy editing, and rewriting in places; the opening is a particular problem:

'A girl is a female human child, as contrasted with a boy (a male child). When a female person is a "girl" varies in different societies; however, in most cultures it is typically applied to a female child from birth until the late teens.'

As contrasted with an adult female too, so better not to capsize the flow here. 'When' should be 'The age beyond which females are no longer considered to be girls'. Remove 'person'. Why is 'however' used when not contradicting the previous statement? What does 'it' refer to (this should always be crystal clear)? Remove 'child' as redundant.

Phew, that's a lot of change for one and a half lines. Then my eyes stray down to the next sentence: 'living girls'? What, as opposed to dead ones?

Please find one or more collaborators to help.

Apart from the prose, the other problem is that it's far too short and in many respects lacks depth. Please provide much more on gender roles, and why not merge usage with this section. (We don't want it to overtly look like a dictionary, anyway.) So many of your statements require MUCH more support (not that I disagree with them—it's a matter of gaining authority and comprehensivity, and pursuing fascinating leads.)

It's stubby, I'm afraid—the whole thing. Maybe the scope needs to be more tightly delineated; this topic is an encyclopedia in itself.

Tony 01:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]