Wikipedia:Peer review/Threshing-board/archive1

Threshing-board
This article was recently the Spanish Translation of the Week. The article was translated in its entirety from the article trillo, which is a featured article on the Spanish wikipedia.

Now that the article has been translated, it would be helpful to have a fresh set of eyes look it over - especially people who have not read the corresponding article in Spanish and therefore do not already know what it is trying to say.

We are looking for any advice on how to improve the article. Given the high quality of the original article, it should be possible to improve this to a good article and eventually to a featured article. Here are a few topics for possible comments, but feel free to comment on other things as well:

1) general comprehensability to people new to the topic

2) organization

3) formatting of references / other technical issues

4) material that might be better off removed

5) You will notice that the article has a heavy emphasis on Spain. It would be better to make the article more balanced, but the editors are not familiar with threshing-boards in other countries, so it will be somewhat difficult to add more information about other countries.  Still, any specific suggestions on how to add more geographical balance would be much appreaciated.

--Fagles 19:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to do some cleanup of the article structure, but several of the images are larger than the text size and need to be resized, and the section headings don't conform with WP:MSH. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to figure out how to shrink the images and see what's wrong with the section headings. Fagles 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm fairly certain that self-references to WikiProjects are not allowed in the main space - this should be deleted:
 * Good point. It's now gone forever. Fagles 23:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to SandyGeorgia for the excellent suggestions and improvements. I think we have addressed all the issues that were raised. Any additional advice from peer reviewers would be much appreciated. Fagles 02:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)