Wikipedia:Peer review/Maguire v SOCOG 1999/archive1

Maguire v SOCOG 1999

 * 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 September 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am doing an assignment for a general studies law course "Cyberspace Law" which asks for a traditional paper based case study turned into an authoritative wikipedia article. Unfortunately, wikipedia only has "good article" or "featured article". Could you peer review "Maguire v SOCOG 1999" by providing me with practical advice that can be easily be implemented so the article could be nominated for either "good article" or "featured article"? thanks

Thanks, Semibrevetrouser48white (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Interesting topic, but needs a large amount of work to conform to the Manual of Style and be good article, let alone featured. Please read carefully WP:WIAGA and then WP:WIAFA. 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; 03:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has a one sentence lead. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * The article may need fewer sections / header too. The section titles do not meet the guideline on section headings
 * References need to be formatted better - 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
 * Avoid bullet point lists - convert to prose.
 * There are many one or two sentence paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * Language needs a copyedit
 * None of the categories are actual categories - these are not helpful as red links
 * Article has (almost) no links to anything else on Wikipedia