Wikipedia:Peer review/List of historic schools of forestry/archive1

List of historic schools of forestry
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate feedback and suggestions for improving it prior to consideration for Featured List status.

Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These links may be useful for expansion of the list.
 * Category:History of forestry education
 * Category:Forestry education
 * Category:Forest research institutes
 * Category:History of forestry
 * Template:Catscan2
 * http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php
 * Also, the list might be converted to a sortable wikitable, with a few important aspects selected for the column headings. See Help:Table/Sortable tables.)
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this quality improvement project, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by Cirt
 * 1) Cites could use a bit more standardization for uniformity.
 * 2) You might find it helpful to use cite templates at WP:CIT, also WP:CITE would be instructive.
 * Agh, unfortunately there are some cites that are just bare links to other language Wikipedia articles like here http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilckens_Henrik_D%C3%A1vid -- that's really inappropriate for sourcing standards.
 * 1) There are several entries on the list with no cites, per WP:V, this is not the best standard, makes it difficult to confirm the information.
 * 2) Best to move the Wikimedia Commons link into a new sect for External links, instead of the See also sect.
 * 3) I like how there's a Further reading sect, but making it part of the References sect makes it confusing for the reader as to whether or not these are just suggestions for further reading, or also sources that were used in the article as references.
 * 4) The lede/intro sect is a bit small, per WP:LEAD, lede/intro sect should adequately summarize the entire article's contents and provide a good introduction background for the reader.
 * 5) Haven't checked over the image usage but those could use a double check for image review standards.