Wikipedia:Peer review/Defense Technical Information Center/archive1

Defense Technical Information Center

 * 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 August 2008.
 * 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 August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I just finished a major overhaul. This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and I'm looking for comments and assistance for this article, but tips and comments on my work for my future edits here!

Thanks, ThomasOwens (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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." Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You need to decide if you are going to develop this into a full Wikipedia article, or leave it as a brief summary with links. If it is to be a full-scale article, the following require attention:-


 * The lead needs to be expanded into a full summary of the article. At present the brief lead section simply defines what DTIC is, whereas the article covers its foundation, history and range of activities. The general rule is that anything of significance in the main article should be briefly anticipated in the lead; conversely, anything that appears in the lead should be expanded in the main article.


 * Sections in the main article should generally be in prose, not in bullet-point list format. I see from the article's talk-page that the need to rewrite the History section in prose has been acknowledged, and perhaps this would be the first place to start the development of the article.


 * The bald links in the IAC lists need to be replaced by short descriptions of what these agencies actually do, cited to each web source.


 * References need to be properly formatted, using the cite web template.


 * The appearance of the article would be improved if you can find a related image or two. You may have to stretch your imagination, but I expect there will be DoD material on Commons that has some relevance to this article.

I have not looked in detail at the prose, but will do so if you decide you want to develop the article on the above lines. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)