Wikipedia:Peer review/Grammatical number/archive1

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

I am concerned about the reliability of the sources cited for verification.

Thanks, Eldin raigmore (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of references by Charles Edward

Since you have only requested a review of the referencing, that is all I will review. You are correct to question it, because it is almost non-existant as far as WP:Citation is concerned. As a rule of thumb, each new fact, statistic, and paragraph should end with an inline citation. So in short, this article is almsot entirely without those citations, and the ones being used are not very good. Also see WP:RS.


 * Ref #1 in my opinion this is a valid reference. It is third party and has a reliable publisher.
 * Ref #2 is not acceptable, the publisher is not a reliable source. If the document can be found elsewhere it could be used
 * Ref#3 and #4 are acceptable, two good book sources. This is the best kind of source for an article like this.
 * Ref#5 is a wiki!! a totally unacceptabel source that should be removed. Not reliable at all.
 * Ref#6 is ok.
 * Ref#7 is marginally ok. There is bound to be better though
 * Ref#8 is ok
 * Ref#9 is ok
 * In bibliography there are many books which are listed, but have no citation within the article. If they have been used to source the article, inline citations need to be added. Otherwise they need removed from the bibliography section and could be put in a further reading section instead.

Advice on how to improve the referencing
 * I would get one of the books listed in the bibliography and read it. Then go through the article and add citations to page number (and correct innaccurate information) to bring the referencing quality up.
 * Right now you should have aroung fifty inline citations for an article of this length. The Quadral section is currently the only section that has proper inline citation usage
 * The references are also not entirely formatted correctly. I recommend using a "cite" template since that takes care of the syntax for you.

I hope this awnsers your questions and give you a direction to help improve the article. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 16:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)