Wikipedia:Peer review/Nord Stream/archive1

Nord Stream

 * 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 July 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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is an ongoing and at the same quite controversial topic. This make the process to improve this article to the WP:GA level quite challenging. I would like to get guidelines what additionally has to do be done before the WP:GAN.

Thanks, Beagel (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. 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; 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead here should be more than one paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width (not a given pixel width) to allow reader preferences to take over.
 * Article could use a copy edit - just one example the external link "Map of the disputed between Poland and Danmark zone" should probably read "Map of the disputed zone between Poland and Denmark"
 * Article has many short sections - could these be combined or pehaops expanded? Also organization is a little odd - there is a Political aspects subsection under Controversy, then four subsections later there is a German political controversy subsection. Could this be combined as a political subsection? If not, could they at least be put back to back?