Wikipedia:Peer review/Daniel Rodriguez/archive1

Daniel Rodriguez[edit]

This article has had a very difficult birth. It was created by new editors who didn't understand Wikipedia policies, and was the subject of some fierce edit wars. I have given it a thorough cleaning, and would now like some feedback about improvements. One criticism has been that it reads more like a press release than an article. I don't agree, but perhaps I have lost my objectivity in the editing process. I would appreciate suggestions for how to expand it, and also what can be trimmed to make it more encyclopedic. Lastly, it has also been suggested that it is over-referenced, and that the amount of referencing and the quality of the sources, taken together, are "unintentionally hilarious". So a critical look at the references would be in order, in my opinion. Thank you for your time and feedback. Jeffpw 10:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it looks like a press release, it seems pretty good to me. Minor suggestions:

"He has now recorded several albums, appeared in opera, in symphony concerts, and performs in support of several charities" - bit choppy and would work better as a triad, could it be "...opera and symphony concerts,..."?
"a prominent figure in the New York music industry" - I'm assuming you don't know the person's name, otherwise it's a bit odd

No, the name was not given in the source. I agree an actual name would be better, but could not find it, myself. The sourced used as a ref uses a similar construction. Jeffpw 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"May of 2004", "June of 2006" and any others I missed - the "of" is redundant, so don't use it
Check the article for odd punctuation or positioning of refs (I found a few and corrected them, but there may be more) - refs should come after the punctuation mark but with no gap

Not sure why the sourcing is "unintentionally hilarious", it seems alright. And over-referencing is hardly a deficiency of the article (although any more than 3 cites for a non-controversial issue would be perhaps overdoing it). My only other suggestion would be to try to find a picture of him at one of the more important events. Trebor 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time in reviewing this, Trebor, and for your constructive feedback. Jeffpw 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I would appreciate if this request for peer review were put on hold for at least a week. This article has no stability, and all edits made to it are intensely and often inappropriately edited by an editor, who while possibly meaning well, has been hostile to 3 prior editors who tried to make improvements to the article. In addition this user created 7 or 8 sockpuppet accounts, now blocked, to facilitate this hostility. Jeff has done a lot of good work on the aritlce, but I think allowing it to breathe for a week would do it no harm, and could potentially lead to a better relationship among editors who edit it in the future. I think it would be unfair for anyone to step in and PR the article only to meet with revertions and potentially being attacked. This is not an assumption of bad faith on my part, I think people can change. But I think that when things are heated up adding new people into the broth is not as good an idea as waiting until the broth has cooled well below the boiling point. Could this simply be withdrawn for a week, then be reposted? KP Botany 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand your concerns, KPBotany, given the article's development. I personally don't see any harm in having a Peer review as this is a separate page used solely for feedback from the community to improve the article. However, if you would like to withdraw this, I have no objections. Jeffpw 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]