Wikipedia:Peer review/Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns/archive1

Gustave Rolin-Jaequemyns

 * 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 November 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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is featured content on both the dutch and the german wiki. Being very much a collaboration between de:Benutzer:UW, User:ThaiBeaver, some benevolent cleaner-uppers and myself, I think this article may be ready for FA status on the english Wiki, So measure it to high standards, and i will see what i can do to improve the article. Thanks, Kleuske (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to peer review this article. Unfortunately I don't have time to give it the attention it deserves. I would, however, suggest looking at some of our FAs to see the kind of articles we promote. See, for example, Learned Hand, one law-related article that recently passed. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer and your time and input. Do you think the article is not up to the harsh standards set? Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. WHile this is an interesting article, it does not yet meet the Englsih Wikipedia's criteria for Featured Articles. 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; 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know there are differences in citation style between the English and German Wikipedias, but to reach GA or FA, this needs many more citations, for example the whole Congo section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * The refs that are there do not always have enough information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Books need publisher, date, city. cite web, cite book and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * The cquote template is used, but this is not recommended. blockquote would be better, but it is for quotes longer of about four lines or longer (not one line). See WP:MOSQUOTE
 * The language is decent, but could use some polishing in places.
 * It helps a lot. And I did not really think the article is ready for FA yet, but i did want a fair stab of what should be improved. The Congo section is quite "new" (translated from the work done by UWon the german Wiki) and hasn't been thourougly reffed yet. I worried most about the language, as it's damn near impossible for me (being a non-native speaker) to keep british and american versions separated. At least you gave me some peace of mind there. I'll take a long hard look at the refs. Thanks!
 * Kind regards, Kleuske (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)