Wikipedia:Peer review/Sindy/archive1

Sindy[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would love some feedback on how to further improve this GA article, especially how to avoid proseline and where to find more sources.

Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some fairly nitpicky suggestions for improvement:

Per WP:LEAD the lead should be two or three paragraphs - I think the current lead could be split into two paragraphs. My rule of thumb is that every header should be mentioned in the lead in some way, even if it is only a word or phrase. For example, perhaps more could be in the lead on the development.
Provide context for the reader - for example, in "Development and launch" it might help to say Pedigree is in Exeter, or that Ideal was based in New York. See WP:PCR
At FAC someone might ask what happened between the introduction of the doll in 1963 and the next date given, 1968, when it was the best selling toy in Britain. How did it get there?
Aha, reading further I see that the "Developing accessories and American release" section is not chronological - it might make more sense to put this information in chronological order, perhaps just by putting these three sentences (Sindy was the best selling toy ... Sindy's success in the 1960s ... Mattel did not focus on Barbie's accessories ...) at the end of the first paragraph in the section, after the designers.
Could more specifics be given here During the 1970s, the foundation of marketing the Sindy doll was developing more products.[8] - how did this lead to decline (when the next section also focuses on new products, which were successful).
If two or three sentences in a row all have the same reference and there is not a direct quote in there, I think it is fine to have just one ref at the end of the last sentence that is referenced with this material. As it is, the article seems to have too many superfluous refs.
The advertising campaign for the fashion company Alexon was not for the doll, right? I think this could be made clearer. Also any idea on how it affected the doll's sales? If it was held up in a major ad campaign as a model of childishness compared to high fashion I doubt it would help sales.
The article (as opposed to just the lead) needs to mention Sindy's changed appearance to look more like Barbie in the Hasbro redesigned Sindy .. sentence for this to make sense: Hasbro introduced Sindy in France and continental Europe in 1994 after minor facial modifications to reduce her resemblance to Barbie.[16]
General comment - once Sindy was introduced in the US, I had trouble telling whether statements related to the US or the UK or both or the world or whatever. Try for greater clarity.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps Ruhrfisch, I will incorporate all your suggestions. In regards to the superfluous refs, I agree, but I thought it was best to have a reference for every sentence until the article was somewhat stable to avoid something important ending up unreferenced after a lot of stuff is changed. Thanks! Somno (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]