User:Ruhrfisch/PR

Peer review useful bits to cut and paste - this is what 3 a day for almost three months has driven me too.

My intro


 * Ruhrfisch comments: Ruhrfisch comments


 * Interesting article


 * While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further.


 * Here are some suggestions for improvement:


 * Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

LEAD


 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article


 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself


 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way


 * The article may need fewer sections / header too


 * Please see WP:LEAD


 * There seems to be too much empahsis in the lead on compared to the amount of text in the article itself WP:WEIGHT

REFS


 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase


 * Article needs more references, for example


 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.


 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful.


 * See WP:CITE and WP:V

LANGUAGE Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK

QUOTES
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.

IMAGES
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.

END
 * Ruhrfisch comments:, here are some suggestions for improvement. Ruhrfisch comments

*

*

*

*

* Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, ~

Peer review limits
The guidelines for Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, ~

Delisting
Please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have had an unsuccessful FAC have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review. The thought is that the FAC should have many comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting to peer review. Since the FAC is a very detailed review (I checked), it is a waste of scarce PR resources to peer review this in its curent state. Sorry, ~

For those who include SAPRs in a PR
I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." You can see these for the current version of the article at any time, just by clicking on "automated tips" in the Toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review. Thanks, ~