Wikipedia:Peer review/Padahuthurai bombing/archive1

Padahuthurai bombing
As an attempt to bring sanity and calm towards Sri Lanka conflict related articles in Wikipedia, this is a third in a series of articles that has been rewritten and in need of NPOV, WP:RS  and style check. It is about an incident that happened in 2007 January when bombs well on a site that has conflicting claims ending in the death of 15 civilians. Thanks Taprobanus 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Brennen
[…]…I am astonished at how well layed out this article is. I know nothing of the politics or the circumstances, or on how biased or unbiased this topic may be, but I will say that this is perhaps the best article I've ever seen on wikipedia when you are considering spelling, grammar, asthetics, photos, and layout. If the material is unbiased, and I hope it is because I wouldn't know (it seems to be), then I see no reason this should not be a featured article. […] Matt Brennen 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed a couple of typos- so I may have jumped the gun just a little bit. Someone better than I should go over it with a fine toothed comb for sililar errors. The article is otherwise in very very good shape. Matt Brennen 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can point them out, I will fix them Taprobanus 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nswinton
I've made edits on narrative writing style, metric/english measurement flip-flops, messed up sentence structure, spelling errors, a random parenthesis (!) in the middle of a sentence, and a few sentences that were completely unnecessary to the article. I've re-written whole paragraphs. The quotes were badly formatted (blocked, but with no quotation marks!). I'd strongly encourage a few more people to critically proofread this article for spelling, grammar, typos and sentence structure. It does a decent job (as far as I can tell) of being NPOV despite a clearly controversial topic, and cites it sources well. After a few more people look over this and give it some more polish, I think it'd be a worthy GA candidate. User:Nswinton 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]


 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]


 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]


 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 100 yards, use 100 yards, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 100&amp;nbsp;yards.[?]


 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]


 * As per Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]


 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: fibre (B) (American: fiber), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), isation (B) (American: ization).

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]