Wikipedia:Peer review/East Carolina University/archive1

Mission Success, East Carolina University became a GA. Now to make it a Featured Article.  P G Pirate  16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is the main focus of WP:East Carolina and a GA candidate. Not many other people write on this site, so I figured I'd ask for suggestions here. As my ultimate goal is to make this article a Featured Article - PGPirate 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer-review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Morphh   (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 13:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * Take a look at the references. There are extra wikibrackets "[" or "]"on URL links and some of the access dates.  Morphh   (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review by LaraLove
I've done quite a bit of the work myself. I took care of a few of the issues noted by the automated review. Dates, location of refs, some of the issues with the ref formatting. I didn't have time to do it all. However, below are the issues I noticed: Regards, Lara Love  T / C  06:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged a statement that references 2008. I'm not sure if that's a post-dated publication or a typo.
 * The quotes from the school website, which I have tagged, flag a NPOV issue for me. School and business websites tend to exaggerate and/or use words that show them in the best possible light, so to speak. Rather than include quotes boasting excellence and such, include information that shows it.
 * I have also tagged a statement as vague. "The professional staff of nine, six of whom are Pirates, housed in the Taylor-Slaughter Alumni House..." - Which are housed in the T-SAH? The nine or the six?
 * I personally do not like the notable alumni paragraph. The prose seems unencyclopedic to me. I've always seen bulleted lists of notable alumni, which I find to be more appropriate.
 * Currently, there is an inconsistency with conversions, i.e. 82,095 square feet (7627 m²).
 * Under "Traditions and events", I don't think the events should be emboldened. I would think italicizing would be more appropriate.
 * References:
 * I'll have to double check, but I believe the dates for references should be written out (January 1, 2007) as opposed to the current style (2007-01-01).
 * References used multiple times, such as, should be named. To do this, in its first occurrence, just change is needed for those.
 * PDF files do not need (pdf) noted considering the image icon that is automatically generated. It is also preferred that page specifications be included for PDF files, particularly if they include many pages. In the case of the above example (McLarhorn), naming the reference would not be appropriate if different pages were being cited.
 * Several references have formatting issues/missing information. Also, the inclusion of (in English) for ref 80 is unnecessary.
 * Images: Idealy, images should be located in the section for which they depict.
 * Image:Pirate_Statue.jpeg should be moved up to where Image:ECU_Cupola.gif is currently.
 * Image:ECU_Cupola.gif should be moved to where Image:Wright_circle.jpg is currently.
 * Stagger remaining images appropriately, ensuring they do not run into the references section, as is currently the case. If you find there are more images than room, remove one. I recommend either Image:Wright_circle.jpg, as I don't see mention of Wright Circle (although I'm tired and this is a long article and I may have forgot), otherwise, place them image near the section where it's mentioned and remove Image:Eculogo.jpg.