Wikipedia:Peer review/Hill & Adamson/archive1

Hill & Adamson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm still pretty new at creating articles, and I want to see if I've covered all the bases (Notes/References, infobox, authority control, talk page, etc.)

Thanks, Scewing (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article looks to be in a fairly early stage of development at present. The peer review process is really meant for articles that are rather futher along the line than this one is: "...intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." However, I can offer a few suggestions as to how to improve it.

• The lead should be a concise summary of all the main features of the article – an encapsulation of the whole. Everything of significance in the article needs to be touched on, however briefly, in the lead; for this reason it is best to write this last, when the main text is complete.
• I assume that the studio name was "Hill & Adamson" though this needs to be specifically stated. You need to avoid the ampersand when you are writing about them as individuals rather than as the partnership.
• We need more introductory material. Give us background information about Hill and Adamson, their dates of birth say, and a summary of their activities before they met. Don't require your readers to use links to find this information. The whole article could do with some expansion; it runs to less than 600 words at present. A single quotation from a web page cannot be considered to represent an adequate "Historical perspective".
• Remember that you are writing a neutral encyclopedia article, not a piece of magazine journalism or promotional literature. Some of your phrasing is definitely not neutral, e.g. Adamson's "considerable sensitivity and dexterity"; "their amazing photographic works"; "extremely" successful – are examples of what I mean. Even "untimely death" carries an emotional whiff and would be better as "early death"
• Informal expressions such as "the great and the good" are fine in magazines, but strike the wrong note here.
• Web pages are written (and hopefully, read). They do not write, however.
• Note 2. looks artificially attenuated
• The checking tool reveals that there is one disambiguation link: (creel)
• I noticed the odd MOS violation, for example use of a hyphen rather than a dash within the text.

I hope these points will help you to develop the article further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)