Wikipedia:Peer review/Train horn/archive2

Train horn

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 November 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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article has seen significant improvements in the past year.

Thanks, HarveyHenkelmann (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting topic and good start. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I also note that the previos peer review has many suggestions which have not yet been adressed. I will repeat some 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; 12:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be expanded to 2 or 3 paragraphs. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Article is almost entirely unreferenced - my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Without them, it is hard to be sure there is no WP:OR. Refs also helps establish notability for topics.
 * 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
 * Galleries of images are generally discouraged in articles
 * Article is very US-centric, which seems to raise WP:NPOV issues
 * Article has very many short (one or two sentenc) paragraphs - these break up the flow of the article. They should be combinmed with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.