Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Inglis (engineer)/archive1

Charles Inglis (engineer)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I feel this article would benefit from a peer review. I would like to take this to FAC eventually, if peer reviewers think it likely to be suitable, (Engineering is heavily under-represented there and this would be the first FA about a civil engineer) but my last FA was three years ago so I am a bit rusty. In particular a check on the prose would be helpful as my previous FAs have been picked up for this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A few things, not a full review by any means:
 * The automated peer reviewer found some things that should be checked on:
 * It says the article is short for a FA, and I have to agree.
 * The article is not consistent between British and American spellings. It seems to be mistaken.
 * Checklinks, if one turns on reporting of everything but good links, reports some subscription-only links and another that looks suspicious at first glance.
 * For a check on the prose, I advise listing it at WP:GOCE/REQ or WP:GOCE/FA, although I can try to do some copyediting myself; are you worried about errors (I can help on that), style (I can try, but no guarantees), or what?
 * An additional thing - the references are not currently in any consistent format; I suggest putting them all into cite book, cite web, etc. formats. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 12:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Allens. Thanks for taking a look at this.  I agree with you that an FAC is a while away yet (I would like to improve the depth of coverage first) but if you could take a quick look over the prose style (in particular I know I tend towards a lot of "in 1919..." sentences) or any grammatical mistakes that'd be fantastic.  With regard to the refs, I don't think I can replace many of the subscription only ones, but what was the one you thought suspicious? I'll try to take a look at the references when I get a moment- Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome. I've started doing a copy-edit of it (first pass done, will go over again). I've marked the suspicious one (which, upon examination, is now an essentially dead link) with dead link (it's for his honorary degree). I understand about not being able to replace the two subscription-only ones; I'd just make sure they are marked with subscription required. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)