Wikipedia:Peer review/Long and short scales/archive1

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

The article has successfully achieved GA status, but failed a FA review (13 July 2011) on a number of structural / formatting / sourcing issues. I'd like to engage with the PR process to improve this article, which is regularly referred to outside WP as a definitive statement on this issue. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to comment extensively on topic, so my comments are almost exclusively related to formatting and manual of style issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments from Nikkimaria
 * WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times (especially not in close proximity)
 * Bibliographical annotation (ie. when you explain what a source is, what its purpose is, or similar) is usually confined to External links, if used at all
 * A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, usually more depending on content
 * "...value within each scale - the short scale logic...": phrases like this should use spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not hyphens. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH for usage rules
 * Why are prefixes bolded in the tables?
 * Why are certain paragraphs in History indented?
 * Generally speaking, italics should be used for emphasis, and sparingly, never bolding or capitalization - see WP:ITALICS
 * Don't tell the reader to "note" something - see WP:W2W
 * Try to avoid very short subsections and a very long table of contents
 * Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text
 * All book citations need page numbers
 * This link returns a 404 not found. See here for other potentially problematic links
 * Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
 * Don't cite anything to a wiki
 * Make sure similar citations are formatted the same way
 * Make sure all sources used meet the reliable source policy. For example, who is the author of this site, and what are his or her qualifications?
 * Don't repeat cited sources in External links.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've copied your above comments - so that I can strikeout in the copy any that I think are now dealt with. If you are reviewing progress from time-to-time, I would appreciate an indication if you disagree the mitigation has cleared your corresponding comment. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Work-in-progress comments


 * WP:OVERLINK: don't link very common terms, don't link the same term multiple times (especially not in close proximity)
 * A good rule of thumb is to have a minimum of one source per paragraph, usually more depending on content
 * "...value within each scale - the short scale logic...": phrases like this should use spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, not hyphens. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH for usage rules
 * Generally speaking, italics should be used for emphasis, and sparingly, never bolding or capitalization - see WP:ITALICS
 * All book citations need page numbers
 * Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
 * Don't cite anything to a wiki
 * Make sure similar citations are formatted the same way
 * Make sure all sources used meet the reliable source policy. For example, who is the author of this site, and what are his or her qualifications?


 * Bibliographical annotation (ie. when you explain what a source is, what its purpose is, or similar) is usually confined to External links, if used at all
 * Why are prefixes bolded in the tables?
 * Why are certain paragraphs in History indented?
 * Don't tell the reader to "note" something - see WP:W2W
 * Try to avoid very short subsections and a very long table of contents
 * Don't link terms in See also already linked in article text
 * This link returns a 404 not found. See here for other potentially problematic links
 * Don't repeat cited sources in External links.