Wikipedia:Peer review/Red Arrows/archive2

Red Arrows
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article seems to be in a good state, and I was hoping to see what improvements can be made before it is nominated for GA status. Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

Brianboulton comments: Clearly, work and some care has gone into this article. However, it is too early for it to have a full-scale peer review, and I suggest that attention be given to the following before the article is brought back here.
 * The article is seriously under-referenced at present. There are no citations in the main text until half way through "The Red Arrows" section. After that, they are still few and far between. As a broad rule, every paragraph should have at least one citation, and every paragraph should end in a citation.
 * Prose needs better organisation. Very short paragraphs should be avoided, especially in the lead
 * Lead needs to be a broad summary of the whole article, reflecting the text below, rather than a collection of a few introductory facts. The £1.5 million ride is not appropriate for mention in the lead.
 * Avoid bullet-point format ("accidents and incidents"). All sections should be written in prose.
 * Bolding should not be used in the text for emphasis
 * Section headings should not mirror or repeat the article title ("The Red Arrows", "Red Arrows accidents and incidents")
 * The article is presently over-imaged, with 12 in the main space and another 16 in a gallery. The temptation to use images just because they are available needs to be resisted. Many of the images are quite similar; I would recommend choosing about 12 altogether, for inclusion in the main text, and dropping the gallery. Text should not be squeezed between images as in the Pilots section.
 * There are two links to disambiguation pages: Kastelli and Kemble
 * Ref 15 contains a dead link
 * Some references are unformatted

When work has been done on all these areas, I'd recommend another peer review. Alternatively, I'd be prepared to look at it again informally, if you notify me when the main work is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking the time to complete the review. I'll be in touch soon hopefully. Harrison49 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)