Wikipedia:Peer review/Burkhard Heim/archive1

Burkhard Heim

This is a biographical article which has changed very much over the past 3 months. A lot of content has been added, but perhaps in a manner where it may be confusing to the reader. It would be nice if someone could go through the article and suggest any of the following for improvement:

1. Proper sectioning
2. Suggestions for organizing the external links
3. Resolution of the POV in the article
4. Commentary on the content (Here is a list in particular that focus should be given to)
   • Is it clear? (Does the article seem muddled, or disambiguous?)
   • Is it factual? (Does it lack substance? If so, how to improve on this given the lack of resources?)
   • Is it knowledgeable? (Does it sound competent and consistent?)
   • Is it comprehensive? (Does it cover all the essentials of a biographical article?)
   • Is it applicable? (Is it an article that is welcome on Wikipedia?)
   • Is it analytical? (Does is explain clearly the character of this person from different perspectives?)
   • Is it synthetic? (Is the article a good conglomeration of facts on this person?)
   • Is it evaulative? (Does this article critically assess the circumstances of this person?)

It would also be great if someone could go through it and make corrections to any of:

1. grammatical errors;
2. spelling;
3. flow;
4. anything which will improve the quality of the article.

Ideally, it would be nice to see this as a featured article someday. Thanks in advance for your help and input - it's very much appreciated! --HappyCamper 14:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've gone through and done some minor spelling, link and POV changes, but I didn't want to do to much for fear of stepping on anyone's toes. I would suggest:
  • adjusting sections (perhaps amalgamating 1940s/1950s)
  • more time spent explaining 'mystical' theories, less time defending them as seperate from his other work
  • I'm afraid I lack the scientific credentials/knowledge to comment on factuality.
  • check your links (e.g. I removed the one on 'incubation period', as it linked to a medical article talking about incubation period of a disease, which I'm sure was not what you were referring to.
• Just some suggestions, and good luck! --Scimitar 22:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scimitar - thanks for your feedback! Anyone else with suggestions? HappyCamper 04:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are alot of external links there, choose the ones that you used to write the article and then trim off anything not immediately relevant to the article. You will need to cite your sources and possibly use a footnote system to show which source you used to add facts and opinions, providing you have used neutral sources a good referncing system should also help clear up remaining POV problems. The article could use some more images. How did he get his theories out to the public if not through journals? There should be a list of publications. --nixie 04:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Also the sectioning is confusing in places, early life overlaps with Academic and work history and they both overlap in time with Heim's life and health. I think it would be better to just use a chronological description of his life. 1990s to 2001 is empty. --nixie 04:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion on how to do footnotes? Is there an example somewhere you recommend? The section 1990s - 2001 is empty because we haven't found much information about this period of his life yet. Burkhard Heim has a companion page Heim theory in Wikipedia. For the purposes of this review, I thought it would be better to attempt fixing the biographical page first and then attempt fixing his theory page. There is no dispute over things such as where he was born and where he lived. The current dispute is over the interpretation of the utility of his theory, and essentially writing the article so that the issues raised by supporters and opponents of his works and legacy are bridged. Thanks for the suggestion on references - I haven't read much on this person which couldn't be considered POV, but at least having a list of some sort would definitely be a good starting point. --HappyCamper 14:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Footnote3 is quite easy to use and looks nice. --nixie 23:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)