Wikipedia:Peer review/Mutual Broadcasting System/archive1

Mutual Broadcasting System

A very fine, potential choice for what may be Wikipedia's first FA or GA on a radio station. With so many refs in the page, everything's almost looking good. How close has it come to such otustanding levels? --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Seeing what, if any, infoboxes might be appropriate.—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. Infobox Network modifed and applied.—DCGeist 01:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
- Done. No standard abbreviations marked with "s".—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
- All years with full dates are linked in main text. Only such dates not Wikilinked are in Notes. My opinion is that the superabundance of blue links that creates is counterproductive, making the Notes difficult to read. Other thoughts?—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
- Not applicable. Article is a straight history of the network, organized chronologically.—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- correctly
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]
  - Done. Unnecessary word cut.—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid using contractions like: couldn't, couldn't.
- Most natural formulation in context. "Could not" would be unnaturally stiff. Reformulating simply to avoid contraction would lengthen text in ungainly fashion--both usages are in image captions.—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]
- Done. Thoroughly copyedited.—DCGeist 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]