Wikipedia:Peer review/Republic of China (Taiwan)/archive1

Republic of China (Taiwan)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… There have been a great deal of large edits to the article recently, which seem to be spurred on by unaddressed and definitely imminent issues of separation (see Talk:Republic_of_China_(Taiwan)). Someone is getting a little antsy at the lack of attention the article is getting, but I don't really hold the expertise on Chinese history to do it. Would appreciate a look!
 * 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 July 2008.
 * 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 July 2008.

Thanks, Utopianfiat (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a tad busy with a nomination over at WP:FAC, but I'll try to get to a more formal review soon! -epicAdam (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead has several problems. It should not be more than four paragraphs, but is five - see WP:LEAD. It is needlessly repetitive, for example the 1912 establishment is in twice. I also think the organization of the lead is a bit confusing - it jumps around chronologically and by subject too.
 * Biggest problem is lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Images do not follow WP:MOS - for example the widths should not be set using pixels, but just using thumb. Also do not sandwich text between images.
 * Article has some very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded