Wikipedia:Peer review/Put option/archive1

Put option
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the underlying formula given for calculating the premium paid to the writer(seller) of a puts contract is severely flawed, undermining the entire article. See comment under Error heading on discussion page.

Thanks, SamISmyth (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I know little about puts and selling short, but I do know this article has some very serious issues before it even begins to follow the Manual of Style. Here are some suggestions for improvement. 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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Biggest probelm is a complete lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Once they are added, per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful.
 * Without references there is no way to verify the information included in the article. I assume SamISmyth knows what s/he is talking about and that there is an error - if so, please fix the error in the article and add references to reliable sources to back up the material. I assume some sort of finance textbook would be a good ref.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and per WP:LEAD should not be longer than 4 paragraphs - this now has 7 paragraphs in the Lead.
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
 * The two graphs are confusing to me - they need to be better explained and need alt text per WP:ALT
 * I am not sure the one external link meets WP:EL
 * Article is very oddly formatted and large sections of it are not even in standard type (because of spaces before the text)
 * Headers do not follow WP:HEAD (repeat the name of the article)
 * Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined wiht others or perhaps expanded to improve flow.