Wikipedia:Peer review/Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria/archive1

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if there is anything wrong with the article that needs to be fixed.

Thanks, Wustenfuchs 19:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tim riley comments: I have read through the article once, and corrected a few minor typos. I shall read through it again concentrating on the content. Meanwhile, a general observation: you need to go through and regularise your use of quotation marks, (i) converting any curly quotation marks to straight ones, (ii) putting quotations in double quotes instead of the mixture of single and double quotes that you have at the moment. More after I have re-read the article. Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Further comments. The article is extraordinarily thorough and well researched. The following few comments are of minor importance, for the most part, but may be of help in getting the presentation up to FA standard.

• General
  • English or American spelling? You mostly use the latter, but I noticed a "centre" (not in a quotation) in the text. There may be other English spellings; I did not notice any others, but you may want to check.
• Background
  • The WP Manual of Style (MoS) says, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other".  Done --Wustenfuchs 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "the treaty-set borders" – a strange, un-English construction; perhaps simply "the borders set by the treaty"?  Done --Wustenfuchs 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "a Customs dispute" – why the capital letter?  Done --Wustenfuchs 13:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Preliminaries
  • "Black Hand" – the use of quotes at each mention is perhaps superfluous. Would not it suffice to use them at first mention only?  Done --Wustenfuchs 13:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Note 30 – MoS requires the citation to come after the closing bracket. - (Can you explain more?) --Wustenfuchs 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "gendarmes" – such a French term was a surprise to see here; I assume it is the correct terminology, but you may wish to check  Done, it's correct, police in Austria-Hungary was called žandarmerija from this French word, so no other word can replace this.--Wustenfuchs 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • On my (wide-ish) screen there is about an inch of white space between the first and second paras of sub-section "The Tunnel"  Done --Wustenfuchs 01:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Trials and punishment
  • "grand charge" – a technical term? Certainly not a familiar one  Done - I erased the "grand" --Wustenfuchs 01:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "The court did not buy the defendant's stories" – much too slangy a phrase for a featured article; something like "believe" or "accept" is wanted here  Done - fixed. --Wustenfuchs 01:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • "this part of the verdict is accused of being politically influenced" – accused by whom?
  • Salonika trial – the inclusion of the court fees along with the death sentences strikes a mildly comic note of bathos, and could, I suggest be dispensed with - Well, that was their punishment... maybe the fammily payed, who knows. --Wustenfuchs 01:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Controversy about responsibility
  • Black Hand" or Serbian military intelligence: Your contentions in your last para of this sub-section require citation or are apt to be seen as your own interpretation.
  • The newspaper clipping: the same applies here
  • Box quote at end of section: the italics should be removed – see MoS
• Consequences
  • "preamble and enumerated demands #1–7 and #9" – I found the word "enumerated" superfluous and slightly distracting
  • Russia's mobilization set-off – why the hyphen?
• Notes
  • I have never seen authors' names italicised in any list of references, as far as I can recall. You have, moreover, not been consistent in this regard; some of the authors' names are not italicised. I strongly recommend removing all the italics round the authors's names
  • You have no consistent style for the web citations. There is a good template you can use to achieve this, if in doubt (WP:cite web).
• References
  • You have got your italics mixed up in the Dedijer entry.
  • Again, you have no consistency of style for your refs (e.g. some ISBNs linked, some not). You can use WP:cite book to achieve consistency.
  • Books published too early to have ISBNs should have an OCLC number cited instead. You can obtain them here: [1].

I hope these few suggestions are helpful. Please let me know when you nominate it at FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)