Wikipedia:Peer review/United States v. LaRouche/archive1

United States v. LaRouche

 * 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 August 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 August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article covers one of the more famous politically-related trials of the 20th century in the United States. It has been stable (except for some quibbling over a quotation). Any suggestions on how to improve it would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone over the semi-automatic review and found some things to fix, and some that don't need fixing.
 * Fixed linked years.
 * There's one contraction, "can't", in a quotation - didn't change.
 * There are no appropriate free use image that aren't already in use. However a navigation template with photo occupies the top right corner.
 * There are no infoboxes that would fit this topic.
 * I believe it is free from errors in spelling and grammar. Specific suggestions on improvements in writing would be appreciated.
 * I'm working on a better (longer) intro. [Done].
 * Any other input? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:57, 7 August 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; 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally the prose looks decent, but it could use a copyedit to make things as consistent as posible. For example, is it "Federal" or "federal" (both are used)? Or the photo caption for the then FBI Director - I have always read of him as "William Webster" not "Will Webster"
 * A few places need to provide context to the reader - it might help to give some brief background right at the beginning on LaRouche and his movement for those who do not know about him (not everyone will know that "Tanks will roll in the streets of Chicago!"). It might also help to explain what in limine means and especially what a "voir dire" motion means, especially in the context of the trial.
 * Needs refs in some places - this would be a big deal at FAC. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Need more info for some refs. FOr example, 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
 * Many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and some short (one paragraph) sections - can these be combined with others or perhaps expanded to make the article flow better?
 * Per MOS:QUOTE block quotes should only be used for quotes that are at least four lines long.

Thanks for that review. To help me keep track of what I've fixed I'll note here: There's still more work to be done, but this review helps focus the effort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the consistency issues.
 * Added a short "background" section. While I didn't add "Tanks will roll in the streets of Chicago!" I did add a link to the speaker of that quotation. I also added short descriptions of in limine and voir dire.
 * The article currently has 117 refs, which seems like a lot. The article was developed in an adversarial editing environment, so most assertions likely to be disputed have been sourced. I'll work on adding more refs. The only problem with doing that is that as I recheck refs I may be likely to add more information. Hmm, maybe that's not so bad. ;)
 * I've converted all of the bare web cites. The rest of the citations need reformatting, templating, or other refinements.
 * The short paragraphs and sections are mostly there because they cover individual subtopics that are distinct enought to treat separately, but which don't merit longer treatment. Combining them with other paragraphs or sections would not improve the article in most cases. I did combine two.
 * Of the two blockquotes, one of them was four lines in my skin and browser but it turned out to be only 3 lines in a more standard configuration so I made it an inline quotation.
 * GLad my comments were useful. I did not mean Tanks will roll has to be in the article, just showing off my obscure knowledge base ;-) I would only combine paragraphs or sections if it made sense too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of good quotes from the trials and surrounding events. So many that it's necessary to use some discretion and stick with those that are most relevant. I've added sources to almost every sentence (besides the intro and background). I've run it through MS Word's grammar checker twice, and even fixed some of the "passive voice" violations. If Ruhrfisch or anyone else has any further suggestions for improving the article I'd love to hear them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having addressed these issues I've nominated it for a GA review. I hope that's not premature. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)