Wikipedia:Peer review/Karl Marx/archive1
This seems to be not too far from Featured quality. Could do perhaps with a little more on his work (though without shading too much into discussion of Marxism which should be elsewhere). Any comments or interest in contributing? Rd232 14:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Too ignorant for informed comment on content I'm afraid, but I have a point about the references. On FAC, you will inevitably get asked for a list of sources. In spite of the various lists of printed and online works at the end of the article, the reader has no way of telling which works have been actually used as sources (=for supplying or verifying facts in the article). This is Taxman's hobby-horse, see Taxman/Featured articles with possible references problems, and rightly so, in my opinion. The sources versus non-sources distinction is the important one to make, not the online versus printed works distinction. IMHO, a better set of sections at the end would be somethinig like:
- Works by Karl Marx (incidentally, it's not clear to me why your Marx and Engels archive reference has a subordinated list of direct links to selected (?) texts appended, and the Gutenberg Karl Marx resource doesn't, but perhaps there are good reasons.)
- References (online and printed works used as sources)
- External links (online works not used as sources)
- Further reading (printed works not used as sources)
- I'm not personally any too happy about the logic of distinguishing between the last two, since I think online texts can be "read further" just as much as books can, but that's me; Wikipedia practice calls squarely for a separate "External links" section and the Manual of Style seems to assume there will be one.--Bishonen | Talk 03:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think that it's very good, and very informative, but I agree that the reference section should be seperated from his list of written works and further reading. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)