Wikipedia:Peer review/Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I think that there is much more work that needs to be done. I have passed this article through Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and I have received some helpful information there. Now I hope to receive more in-depth feedback in order to improve the article to the best of my ability. Are there any gaps that I have to fill? Is the article too short? Am I lacking in details?
Thanks,
Dem393 (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to get a peer review anytime soon?--Dem393 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I read it and it is an interesting article - it seems like it is more of a list than a regular article, so if it is seen as a list it can not be a Good Article or a Featured Article, although it could potentially become a Featured List (FL). While it has some third-party sources that are independent, to become a FL it will need to have many more suce references and depend less on the primary sources from Merriam-Webster. Some might see this as an advertisement, so the third-party sources are especially important for that reason too. I would also try to explain what each word of the year (number one) is briefly - I had to click on the link to see what "w00t" means. Another possible thing to add would be comparisons to other word lists and perhaps more on cultural impact. I really don't know what else to say about it - the article seems reasonably complete as is, but there is always room for improvement. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to get a peer review anytime soon?--Dem393 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)