Wikipedia:Peer review/Vladimir Romanov/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have greatly expanded it over the last few days. Any outside comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, good job! The article looks much better than it did a short time ago. So here are my thoughts:
- It is not usual to use citations in the lead paragraph. WP:LEAD
- If there are several facts in one sentence that are all verified through the same source, you can just put the reference at the end of the sentence. You don't need to cite the same source three times in one sentence.
- The prose, while generally good, does not always flow very well. Some of the longer sentences "run on" and should be split into two or more smaller sentences.
- Pronouns should be used more extensively, e.g. "Ownership of the club was very fractured, with no individual shareholder owning more than 20% of the club."
- Some portions of the article have too many pictures. If you have three or four on the screen at the same time if becomes distracting.
- Citation #65 seems to be broken.
- Would a "See Also" section be appropriate?
The citations are very comprehensive - that is probably the article's greatest strength. You have done a lot of reseach here and it shows. The article's biggest weakness is its language. In places the prose seems forced, and the paragraphs do not always present cohesive ideas. All in all it is a very good article. I am going to give it a B rating now, but I am confident that if you put it up for GA review it would pass easily.
By the way, I have an article of my own up for peer review. If you have a minute I would greatly appreciate your thoughts: Wikipedia:Peer review/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean/archive1Plasticup T/C 17:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I have made a few changes. My connection at home was down last night so it might take a little time to make the full changes and to review your article.