Wikipedia:Peer review/Canoe & Kayak UK/archive1

Canoe & Kayak UK
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an independent assessment of the article's quality with suggestions for improving the article for a Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Some comments
 * "is the best-selling British" --> "is a best-selling..."
 * What is a "canoeing magazine"? Link it.
 * I think it's better if it's like "Canoe & Kayak UK is a best-selling British canoeing magazine. Published worldwide, it covers all branches of British canoeing and kayaking, but is primarily focused on sea, surf and whitewater paddling."
 * Link that "sea" to "sea kayak", "surf" to "surf kayaking", and "whitewater paddling" to "whitewater paddling".
 * In the infobox, fix the "sports magazines" link. Replace with "Sports magazine"
 * I think it's better if the logo will be replaced by the mag cover down there because the cover, place down there, has no relevance. So it's better if it's in the infobox. After all, the logo is also there.
 * History section is very short. Should be expanded.
 * Regular features section is mostly unsourced. Back them up with reliable sources.
 * And other sections are very short and has no sources at all. I think you should merge some sections.
 * References also have problems. Ref 1 is dead and the rest are bare urls and have no footnotes. Fix them. Provide the author, date, accessdate, publisher, work, title, etc. See Template:Cite web
 * The article, accord. to the talk page, is assessed as "B". I think this should be "Start" class because it's not that complete yet.

Those are my comments. Hope this helps! Thanks. 203.215.116.46 (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I've made changes based on some of them, some will take a bit longer though. I'll do more later. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved references to appropriate templates, removed and added some where quality of source was poor. I think that's the 'maintenance' fixes done, next is adding/expanding content.Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)