Wikipedia:Peer review/Philip K. Dick/archive1

Philip K. Dick[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of ownership issues surrounding its improvement. I would appreciate critical views from disinterested third-parties on how to get this article up to GA and eventually FA standards. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Very interesting article. Some comments...

"approximately 121 short stories" - reads odd - seems very precise number to be approximate!
Why four citations for the last sentence of the lead? It's only asserting a single claim. And while we're there, you have no citations for the middle para of the lead. Some people either have nothing cited in the lead (as it should all be in the article and can be cited there) or they cite the lead entirely. This seems a little half-way house.
Early life section reads a little choppily and needs citations.
Same goes for the last two paragraphs of Career.
Personal life needs to be written out as prose and needs citation.
Android in caption doesn't need to be capitalised.
"(cf. Kafkaesque, Orwellian)." not keen on this syntax, write as prose.
Place citations immediately after punctuation if possible (per WP:CITE)
Avoid in-line links like the philipkdickfans.com link.
Why isn't the ? in androids/sheep linked into the title?
Not overly keen on "selected works" as a level of subjectivity has gone into the selection of what goes into this section.
"the policeman of the title--was very" strange double hyphen.
Films section is listprose, it needs to be tightened up and made to flow more elegantly.
External links is a linkfarm, cut it right back.

That should be a start on the road to GA. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]