Wikipedia:Peer review/Kim Stanley Robinson/archive1

Kim Stanley Robinson

I am interested in submitting this article as a featured article, and would like feedback on its quality before doing so. I don't believe that I have made any factual omissions or fallacies, but am open to criticsm in that department - any stylistic changes are also welcome.

euchrid 10:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:What is a featured article. This article fails many technical details: lead is rather short. No references. Too many tiny stub-like sections (expand article). Check articles on Isaac Asimov or Philip K. Dick, both of which are larger - and better. See what can be adapted/expanded. Photo of the author needed. Good luck. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many of Piotrus points, its important that featured article on similar topics look similar, so check the formatting on Isaac Asimov (Asimov is a nicer article than Dick), you need to expand the section on the authours biography and add a section on Literary themes. The section describing his major trilogies are good, but the writing is a bit fanish. References are also important. I've noticed that this author seems to be a pretty popular public speaker, mabye a section on that could be intereting too. I've found and added a pic and will help out where I can.--nixie 12:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Although what you write may be a competent listing of facts about KSR, the article lacks any real critical evaluation of his work to explain why he has been such a success. He is, after all, one of the most nominated of the current cohort of SF authors (from 1982 to date, he has 25 nominations or awards). To me, an encyclopedia entry for an author has to strike a balance between a factually accurate bibliography and an academic critique. David91 11:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)