Wikipedia:Peer review/National emblem of Belarus/archive2

National emblem of Belarus
After letting this article sit around for a little bit, there were some copy editing and perhaps a ballanced view. I want to make this either a WP:FA or WP:GA, so, I want to hear what yall think. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated response
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, 71.251.36.207 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example,  ==The Biography==  would be changed to  ==Biography== .
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
 * Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 10 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.