Wikipedia:Peer review/Smederevo fortress/archive1

Smederevo fortress
I'm considering submitting this as a FAC, but there's a lot of history missing, despite the length of the section already (Once filled out, it will definitely be in need of some WP:SS-ing which I unfortunately don't have time for right now.). Is that likely to cause an automatic fail, or is there enough to allow it to receive decent consideration? I'm also concerned about redundancy, as some of the information deserved mention in a couple different sections, and while a few details are different in each section, others are not. Is it ok, or too much? How should I fix it? What can be removed from where, without leaving gaping holes? Also, have I gone overboard with the inline citations? If I have, how should I fix that without simply removing sources? Is there anything else that seems to be missing, or errors that I've overlooked? I'm busy now so may not be able to make suggested changes immediately, but if I can get a make-it-FA-quality to-do list to work on when I get the chance, that'd be much appreciated. -Bbik ★ 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lazy review by mcginnly 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, Mcginnly | Natter 08:42, 17 August 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.[?]
 * ✅ If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * There is. -Bbik ★
 * When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
 * Can't find this problem anywhere, anyone up to being a second set of eyes? -Bbik ★
 * ✅ 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.[?]
 * Only used for centuries, which is specified as being correct by the same page. -Bbik ★
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: harbor (A) (British: harbour), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation),  grey (B) (American:  gray), programme (B) (American: program ).
 * According to the given link, grey is "but a minor variant in American English", but it is still acknowledged; I don't see the issue with leaving that spelling even if it is petty. If there are any other words that set this comment off, I can't find them. -Bbik ★
 * ✅ Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 20 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * 20 in 2,700-2,800 words doesn't seem like it's all that bad (Does this comment come from a pure count, or a percentage?), I'll see what can be done to cut some, though. -Bbik ★
 * Five cut, another one will be once I update the history section with more information. I don't think things will work as well if I remove any others, but the script doesn't give this complaint anymore, in any case. -Bbik ★ 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * News to me, Ctrl+F can't find it, even if I stop at can and search all six of those (two of which are part of significant, would that have set it off?). -Bbik ★
 * 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.[?]
 * Shame there's not much useful here this time, the script is usually pretty good. -Bbik ★ 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)