Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Oklahoma/archive2

University of Oklahoma[edit]

Ok, I am resubmitting this for Peer Review. It has been granted Good Article status and would like to start getting it ready for FA status. Please let me know what needs to be improved.--NMajdan•talk 20:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recentlyand soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.

Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.

Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.

Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Thanks, Andy _t 00:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Other than the script, are there any other suggestions? Or is it ready for FA status?--NMajdan•talk 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro is not a proper summary of the entire article. It contain numerous statements that should be in the appropriate sections, too: everything in the lead whould be expanded on later in the article. See WP:LEAD.
One-paragraph sections are poor layout. Either merge them in broader sections or expand them.
Having 2 headers one above the other is also poor layout, add a blurb when that occur.
Have a look over the Cornel University FA candidacy for potential gushing.

Circeus 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the advice. I'll take format problems over content problems anyday. I'll work on the lead.--NMajdan•talk 11:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]