Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway electric multiple unit/archive1

Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

 * 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 because I believe this article has recieved an incorect rating.

Thanks, Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 11:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I just reviewed another article nominated by the same user, so I thought I'd see what the issues were here - many are the same. As I mentioned on the nominator's talk page, peer review is not really for assessment, but this seems about like a Start class article to me. I will also note that peer review is not for articles with major cleanup tags, (this has three such tags). Anyway here are some possibly familair 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 peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem as I see it with the article is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole paragraphs without a single ref
 * 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
 * Still a problem - I got as far as the first section after the lead (P86/P89 rolling stock) and it has no refs (ZERO) that I can see. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CITE references generally come directly AFTER punctuation (no space), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Better, but I see abbreviations like DLR that need to be introduced in the lead, so The Docklands Light Railway rolling stock consists of high-floor, bi-directional, single-articulated electrical multiple units used on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), which serves the London Docklands region of London. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whole article needs to be copyedited - cleanup information dumps like P86/89 Cars dimensions: track gauge 1.44m 4.7ft, body length 28m 91.9ft, body over coupler 28.8m 94.5ft, width 2.65m 8.7ft, bogie centres 10m 32.8ft, rail to roof 3.4m 11.2ft, bogie wheelbase 2.1m 6.9ft, track min radius 40m 131.2ft. [2] (at least it has a ref though)
 * This example has been fixed - the article reads better but could still benefit from a copyedit, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The convert template may be useful
 * I added one in the lead as an example - I stopped when I found that one, you can check the rest yourself, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Still a problem - searched for "px" and found a bunch of thumb widths with pixels set - it needs to be just thumb or thumb and upright (no pixels set) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please do not sandwich text between images
 * On my monitor the first paragraph of the "B07/09 rolling stock" section is sandwiched between two images (only one). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Avoid use of words like current - use things like "as of 2009" instead
 * A search on current still finds six matches (current or currently) Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.
 * I looked at it again as requested and have replied above. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Ruhrfisch, especially regarding the lede. I know nothing about trains. The first sentence of the lede gives me no idea about what the "Docklands Light Railway rolling stock" is. In fact, the bolded part is a link to a completely different article. Okay, I can deduce that DLR is a railway, but I still have no idea what a rolling stock is, and it is not explained nor linked. Also, the lede is supposed to summarize the article, not provide a lot of information not found elsewhere. Hope this helps. decltype (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments from decltype

Having seen the above comments, I have had a go at generally improving the article. I have not touched references, so these may still be at fault, and I have not spent long on the prose, although there were few glaring issues. Currently the article is still rated at 'C'-class. It would be helpful if someone can rate its current classification. Thanks. EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments from User:EdJogg