Wikipedia:Peer review/93rd Infantry Division (United States)/archive1

93rd Infantry Division (United States)

 * 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 2009.
 * 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 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review in order to further refine and improve the article

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article about an important unit, but it needs a lot of work if it is to become a GA or even FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement. 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 poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * 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, but the deactivation after WWII and current units is only in the lead.
 * Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example the first paragraph in the lead could make it clearer that this was in WWI. See WP:PCR
 * Much of the article is unreferenced which is a major obstacle to this getting to GA or FA. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * 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
 * The article is very list-y and needs a copyedit. If possible can lists be converted to text?
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.
 * This doesn't make sense to me - Included were 37,000 troops, of whom 5,000 were in a naval force and 4,000 were civilians. Troops do not include civilians.
 * 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.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Featured_articles several of which might be good models, such as 13th Airborne Division (United States)