Wikipedia:Peer review/Robert Bruce (author)/archive1

Robert Bruce (author)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant revisions of late and I would like feedback on how to improve it.

Thanks, NoVomit (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The most important thing you need to do to improve this article is to rewrite it in a neutral style. Part of this means ensuring that every significant claim or statement made in the article is cited to a reliable neutral source. To illustrate my meaning I have inserted citation tags at various points in the text where one would normally expect to see a citation. I also note that a "who" tag ("who claimed this?") from November has not been answered.

There are other areas requiring attention. Since the article is entitled "Robert Bruce (author)", one would expect to see minimal biographical information and some background context – how he became a New Age author, whether he ever did anything else, etc. Also, the article has very much the feel and appearance of an incomplete draft - the "Research and theories" section consists of a single short sentence. I wonder, too, the extent to which you have familarised yourself with the Wikipedia manual of style (WP:MOS).

I doubt you will get a detailed review unless the above points are addressed. The subject of this article is serious and interesting, and it will be a pity if it loses out because it is not prepared or presented in appropriate encyclopedic style.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)