Wikipedia:Peer review/Engineering ethics/archive1

Engineering ethics

 * 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 February 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 February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I'd like to see this topic be treated solidly and be a Featured Article.

Thanks, MARussellPESE (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very interesting topic for an article, but needs a lot of work to get to FA quality. Here are some 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the current lead seems too short and not detailed enough. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Article focuses on the United States, with a bit on Canada and the UK, but this is a worldwide issue / topic. One FA criterion is comprehensiveness. Another issue is POV if the article does not give enough of the world view. What about the EU, Japan, the rest of the world?
 * Article should start with an image if at all possible.
 * Article uses cquote where it should use blockquote. Even there WP:MOSQUOTE says to only use block quote for 4 or more lines, and these quotes are less than one line on my monitor.
 * Article really overuses direct quotes - put things into your own words, summarize, and use quotes more sparingly. The quote of all seven Fundamental Canons seems especially extreme and probably is pushing the limits of copyvio.
 * Also the article as written is very choppy and does not flow smoothly - there are many bullet point and numbered lists that could be converted into prose for better flow. There are many one or two sentence paragraphs and short sections that could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * Some of the article seems to be original research - for example who picked the list in the Case studies and key individuals section? See WP:NOR. This should be referenced and explained to be put into context for the reader - see WP:PCR
 * External links section seems way too long - see WP:EL
 * References do not always include enough information to allow an interested reader to find the original material. For example, 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
 * Why isn't the Canadian postage stamp a copyvio / fair use image?