Wikipedia:Peer review/William Matthews (priest)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it ready for the FA process. It is currently a good article and I previously listed in as a FAC, but it went unanswered. I've cleaned the article up quite a bit recently, so it should be in pretty good shape. Thanks for any input in advance. Ergo Sum 00:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Article is interesting and notable but if you can make the language bit neutral will be best. Some of the links do not provide much information. Please try to improve it a bit. Jerome Enriquez (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeromeenriquez: Thanks for the comment. Could you provide an example regarding neutrality in the article so that I have a better sense of what you're referring to? Also, I'm not quite sure what links you're referring to. Ergo Sum 13:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ergo, sorry for being so late to this, but to say again that the article is very well written, and now clearly sourced. One quibble; I would loose the "see also" section as its a bit general, and this might be an issue at FAC. All the best. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Thanks for taking a look at this nom again. Do you think the articles in see also are really that unrelated? I was under the impression that the purpose of the section was to link to tangential subjects. Ergo Sum 16:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ergo, see also sections are a hangover from the very early days of wiki. when a majority of articles were stubs, and the "see also" sections were the primary means to hang all the articles together. These days categories do the job just fine, or if the target article is important enough, it would probably be blue linked in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: I didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know. I've removed the see also section and incorporated some of the links that were there through the use of {{Further}} where appropriate. Unless you have any further suggestions, I think I'm going to close this peer review request so that I can nominate the article for FA. Do you think you would be inclined to support it? Ergo Sum 01:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been so tardry Ergo, let me give a quick scan. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Go for it. Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)