Wikipedia:Peer review/PUTCO/archive1

PUTCO

 * 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 January 2009.
 * 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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because Ive made large changes and contributions. I would like to know how I can improve the article.

Thanks, Lourie Pieterse (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

The article looks to be in a fairly early stage of development, and quite a lot of work is necessary to bring it up to a good standard. Here are some areas that you should concentrate on:-
 * PUTCO is a corporation – it's an "it", not a "they". Thus, "It operates", not "They operate"; It "employs", "transports", etc. You need to go through the article and check that you have this consistently correct throughout.
 * Non-encyclopedic terms should be avoided. In the lead alone we have "dramatic" and "visionary men...". These are opinions; the encyclopedia is neutral. Again, check through the whole article for other examples of POV language.
 * Some of the sentence construction is weak. For example: "PUTCO are now 42.6% black owned. 11% of which is by black women". This should read: "PUTCO now has 42.6% black ownership including 11% by women". You need to get someone with copyediting experience to read through and pick up other grammatical and stylistic faults.
 * The History section needs to be re-written as a broad historical narrative, rather than presented in chopped-up 10-year segments. Some of these consist of little more than a single fact or sentence. The section needs to use a consistent historical past tense, so forms like "is founded by..." are wrong; it should be "was founded by".
 * Colloquial expressions should be avoided. Examples: "take over the driving seat" (occurs twice), "torched". There are probably others - these terms, while OK in normal reportage, are not encyclopedic.
 * I notice some spelling mistakes/typos, e.g. "therefor", and "A Year later" (capitalization). Check carefully for others.
 * Sources: numerous problems here:
 * Sources must be neutral and reliable. I don't think that The Marxist Internet Archive can be said to be either of these.
 * The reliability of some other sources also looks questionable.
 * In many instances your on-line references lack publisher details. This is essential in every case.
 * Blockquotes: this format should not be used for short quotations
 * See Also has a redlink in it! What is one supposed to see?

Don't be downhearted by the seeming negative tone of these comments. There is plenty of good and useful information here, it just needs to be organized in a better way. I hope my remarks will help you to do this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)