Wikipedia:Peer review/Participation of women in the Olympics/archive2

Participation of women in the Olympics
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status. I'd appreciate any advice or improvements that could result in the article being ready to be nominated for, and become a GA.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Izzat Kutebar
Hello. This is the first PR I've done. I've agreed to get involved after I submitted one of my own articles to PR in the hope that it might have FL potential. Please give me some time to read this and I will them be able to provide some feedback. Let me know if you have any questions for me. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Initial survey
Well, I can provide some immediate feedback about section History of women at the Olympics which would not be acceptable at one of the GA or FA reviews. The two main problem areas are the sub-headings and the lack of paragraphing within the sub-sections.

The sub-headings have been done in several formats. They must all be level three headings (1900 is not) for consistency and they all need to be in format ccyy–ccyy where the dash is an endash and not a hyphen. For example, change  1972 - 1980  to  1972–1980 . The full year must be given in every case because none of these date-spans are consecutive years. For example, change 1984–92 to 1984–1992.

In all the sub-sections, the text is in a single block paragraph which needs to broken up for readability. One of the worst cases is, again, 1984–92. As a first step, there should be a paragraph break whenever a new Olympiad commences (i.e., at 1988 and 1992). You should then consider paragraph breaks in each Olympiad depending on subject-matter and probably by winter and summer. Please be aware, though, that single sentence paragraphs are deprecated.

Another comment I have is about the images which sometimes disrupt the text by putting headings out of synch, especially the first three left-side ones (Cooper, Konopacka and Haase). Images need to be carefully place so that they enhance the narrative.

I think this is enough to be going on with for now because this all pretty basic. If you can make these improvements and let me know when you're ready, I'll be happy to continue. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for taking the time to review this article! I'd like to apologize for taking so long to get back to you; I haven't been able to get online as much as I would've liked over the past few weeks. I fixed the consistency issue in the headers and also added paragraph breaks to enhance readability. Do you think that it is enough, or should I add more? I also tried to fix the image concern by playing around with size and captions. I also deleted one picture. Would this version suffice, or should I remove more? Once again, thank you for the review. Regards, Jith12 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I just made a couple more tweaks and I think it's looking much better now. It's certainly well sourced so I would say it's getting near to being a good article now. Well done. Thanks. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)