Wikipedia:Peer review/Shanda Sharer murder case/archive1

Shanda Sharer murder case
Hello, what would be needed to get this article up to featured status? Would one reference source be sufficent?; I realize that the sentencing section should be expanded. ۝ ۞ ░ 07:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 11:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * 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:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * 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.[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: wouldn't, couldn't, didn't, couldn't, didn't, couldn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * 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.[?]

User:Midnightdreary
This isn't a full peer review, but might help get things started. I hope this gives a place to start! --Midnightdreary 22:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Sources (!!) - First, sources are a definite problem here. There is only one full reference and it's in the middle of the list. Maybe list that separately under "References," then add a separate subsection for "Footnotes." There are also no citations at all for the "Sentencing" section. More important, though, this article desperately needs multiple sources. For the length of the article and the number of citations, I'd recommend at least 6 different independent, credible sources (books, articles, web sites, etc). See WP:CITE for ideas.
 * 2) Introduction - The introduction should literally introduce the entirety of the article, summarizing all the content that is to come. It should be 10 times as long as it is right now, at least.
 * 3) Tone- The article, I think, also occasionally falls into an inappropriate tone. Look at the "Investigation" part for example. "All morning" is not encyclopedic, and "hysterical" may not be objective. It seems a little too conversational, but that might be just me.
 * 4) "Aftermath?" - I also wonder about the "Aftermath" section. I was expecting some kind of impact on the persons involved or something, not a brief mention of a couple books (with no critical comparison to the true events they relate). A better section heading, perhaps?
 * 5) Long Sentences - As a final suggestion, re-read the whole article for sentences that are a bit too long (reading aloud usually helps identify them).