User:Maryland florida/Imperial Train of Russia/Norgusbjorgus Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead could use a little work. It's very short, which is good for conciseness, but it doesn't quite summarize the entire article as it should. You don't touch on the destruction of the train at all, nor it's role in World War 1.

Content

The content is all relevant and up to date. The only thing I can suggest is get more of such content, but I am not knowledgable enough on the Imperial Train of Russia to know if that is possible. However, I'm sure you can expand more on the discussion to restore the train you touch on at the end.

Sources and References

Referencing is the biggest area that needs work. You have an entire paragraph in your section on the train's role in WW1 without a single citation, and many of your claims throughout the article are uncited, as well.

You have a direct quote, which is usually not allowed by Wikipedia.


 * It was said that "the whole train [was] an example of the most rigorous attention to the smallest details."

Your sources seem fine, but the links to your articles do not work. I'm not sure if this is because they're from UM's library's website, but if fixable you should fix it.

Organization

The content is well-organized, and it is written well. However, there are some grammar errors.


 * "The wood on the train was Indian teak and much of the walls are furniture was upholstered in English cretonne."
 * should be "walls and furniture were upholstered"
 * "The bathrooms were covered in marble and the bathtub was custom made in Paris of copper and silver with a unique design to prevent water from splashing out of the tub while the train was moving."
 * "custom made in Paris of copper and silver" is an odd phrase. I would rewrite this sentence.
 * "The train's station was located in a thick forest which created a fortress that was protected by armed police agents."
 * I think this sentence needs a comma.
 * "Prior to World War I Russia had 71,000 kilometers (approximately 44,117 miles) of railway tracks."
 * This sentence definitely needs a comma, after "World War 1".
 * "However, of these tracks only 13 railway routes led to enemy borders which was scare compared to other countries such as the Austrian Hungarian Empire which had 32 railway tracks leading to Russian borders."
 * Needs commas, would vary the word choice as well. You use "which" a lot in this paragraph.
 * "The strain was incredibly apparent to Russians during the war as many basic goods and necessities were difficult to acquire as as a result of the exacerbated railway system."
 * I would say "...were made difficult to acquire..." instead.
 * "The Imperial train of Russia was destroyed during the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) which was a subdivision of World War II in which the Soviet Union fought Nazi Germany on their eastern front."
 * Comma before which.

Images and Media

The image you have is good, but you could use some more.

For New Articles

There's no table of contents. The list of sources is good, but you could use more and you repeat one of yours.

Overall Content

The content is good at detailing a more obscure but still important subject in history. To make it more complete, you should talk more about it's role in World War 1, which I feel is it's most important aspect in the grand scheme of Russian history. Furthermore, maybe elaborate on the discussion to restore it. Aside from that, I don't know enough about your subject to know if there's anything else to talk about.