Wikipedia:Peer review/C. S. Lewis/archive2

C. S. Lewis

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think this is a pretty encyclopedic treatment of C. S. Lewis as a person; I'd like to renominate it for good article status (especially since it was delisted about a decade ago, and the concerns from that time look to have been well-addressed), but before I do that I'd like to first get suggestions on improvement. In particular I was wondering if the biographical sections were of sufficient length and depth.

Thanks, KilimAnnejaro (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm don't know enough about Lewis to comment on the biographical content, but referencing is an area that still needs some work as the style is inconsistent.

• The notes section contains a mix of short footnotes and full citations, and the references section has a mix of book and other sources. There are several options here – such as changing all of the notes section to short footnotes, but I suggest it would be fine if the notes section contained short refs for books and full citations for non-book sources, and if the references section only listed books (or sources long enough to require page numbers). If the non-book sources (eg 84. Tonkin) did not use short footnotes it would stop them from being incorrectly tagged for page needed.
• It is not clear why there are several lists of books, does there need to be a separate section for secondary sources, some of which are cited and others not – the contents of this section could be listed as either references or further reading.
• Other issues are that some sources lack page numbers, others omit ref tags (Kelly and Guthmann), and the IMDb citations should be replaced with better sources if possible.

Also you may want to look at the quantity and spacing of the images. - EdwardUK (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)