Wikipedia:Peer review/Arms industry/archive1

Arms industry
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article comes with comprehnsive referneces and sources and is not eligible for a start article but atleast an A status. Please review the article.

Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth
The biggest problem here is that large chunks of the article have been copied word-for-word from sources. This appears to violate copyright law as explained at WP:COPYVIO. It says in part, "However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

For example, the Foreign Policy Association says, "Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and sea-based,) conventional missiles, and satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortiums mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter."

The article says, "Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and naval aviation), conventional missiles, and military satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Dassault Aviation, EADS,Finmeccanica, Thales Group, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Britain's BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortia mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter."

The whole article needs to be searched for other material that may belong to someone else and may be protected by copyright. Before I noticed the copying, I made a few other suggestions, as follows:


 * Overlinking. Common terms like business, industry, weapons, and manufacturing, all in the first sentence should not be linked. I'd suggest removing all the links to words that most speakers of English are familiar with. WP:OVERLINK has details.


 * Underlinking. It's easy to forget to link technical or special terms that many readers of English might find unfamiliar. Joint Strike Fighter is an example in the lede. It's linked further down in the article but should be linked on first use.


 * WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line:... " Combinations like "$315 billion" need an nbsp.


 * Reference numbers in the text should be snugged up against the ending punctuation. There should be no space between the end punctuation and the ref number.


 * It's customary to spell out abbreviations such as GDP on first reference, thus: gross domestic product (GDP). On subsequent references, you can use GDP by itself, and readers will know what it means.


 * "US$32.9bn to US$14.3bn" - There's no need to add the "US" to these, and "bn" should be written as "billion"; i.e., $32.9 billion to $14.3 billion". These need nbsps as well.

The subject matter is interesting and deserves a good article. I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI These pages usually do better when reviewed internal by milhist, next time you may wish to pursue that avenue instead of a general peer review. I've left a note at milhist concerning this peer review, so you may see some of our people here in the next few days to offer opinions and advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)