Wikipedia:Peer review/Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for GA status. I could use some advice on how much this should be connected to the prior Glenn Beck rally.
Thanks, – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: I found this a very interesting insight into American political activity. It's the sort of stuff that doesn't get reported over here - though we know all about the extremists, Tea Party-ites etc. I think that the article can be improved by attention to a number of factors which I have listed below:-
- Lead
- Needs expanding into a summary of the whole article. The purpose behind the rally needs to be explicitly stated in the opening paragraph
- What is meant by "an in-character Stephen Colbert"?
- Bolding should be used only for the precise subject of this article, not for the initially separate events that were merged.
- Origins
- Non-Americans may not know who Al Sharpton is. He should be briefly introduced, rather than requiring your readers to use the link.
- Likewise re "Stewart". You have given his full name in the lead and linked him there, but readers need to be told who he is.
- What is "Reddit"? Again explanations, not just a link is necessary
- I think rallies are "organised" rather than "produced"
- Announcement
- Some confusion in the text, where you say: "Stewart stated that the rally was for the majority of Americans". This is presumably referring to his rally, not the march that's just been mentioned. Likewise, in the next paragraph, Oprah Winfrey "gave the attending audience all free airline tickets to the rally." Make it clear that this is to Stewart's rally. (Incidentally, the word "all" in the above is redundant). Later, "free Chinatown bus tickets to the rally" adds to the confusion
- "It was also announced that the two events had been consolidated into the "Rally to Restore Sanity..." Passive voice; does this mean "Colbert announced..."?
- Response to announcement
- Second sentence (beginning "Although organizers said in their application...") is overlong and overcomplicated, needs to be split. And I think that "the Facebook page for restoring sanity" would read better as "Facebook's "Restoring Sanity" page..."
- Last line: "such as" → "including"
- Charity
- For reasons of chronolgy the first sentence should be amended to read: "Prior to the announcement of the joint rally, supporters of the movement for a Colbert-led march had begun a drive to raise money for educational charities..." etc
- Rally
- The images are excellent, but it might be argument that their placement over-dominates the text. Have you considered breaking up the gallery, or placing it at the end? Alternatively, you might consider whether all these images are necessary to illustrate the article.
- The impression I get of the rally from the text is somewhat confused. It is clear that comedy was an important element, though some of the "medals" seem to have been awarded with a more serious purpose. However, the overall picture given here is of a comedy event, with ust a few serious words at the end. Is that an accurate summary of the rally?
- The Medals section , in bullet-point format, should be converted to straight prose.
- Closing remarks
- It is not really acceptable to have these lengthy verbatim extracts. The critical points from the closing speech should be paraphrased in your own prose, with quotations restricted to key phrases or comments.
- Broadcast
- Does this one line of information need a subsection of its own? Surely this can be fitted in somewhere?
- Response
- By definition, "response" means after the event, so to summarise pre-rally comments under a Response heading is illogical. These pre-rally comments should be placed earlier in the article. You already have a "Response to the announcement" section - why not there?
- As a general point, there is the recurrent need to identify people who will not automatically be known outside America. E.g. Ariana Huffington, Bill Maher.
- Overlinking
- I haven't checked through systematically, but it seems that some names are being repeated linked, e.g. Gleen Beck, Fox News, Al Sharpton, possibly others. I suggest you check out this aspect.
- Ref formats
- A number of the citation formats are incomplete, and some are bare urls.
I look forward to your responses, and to seeing the article again when you have made the appropriate adjustments. Please feel free to contact my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)