Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Cambridge/archive2

University of Cambridge

 * 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 September 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it's been a GA class article for some time and feels like it ought to be within reach of FA class, but will probably need a little assistance with getting some specific things that need focus.

Thanks, Mrh30 (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
 * The lead seems a bit sparse for an article of this length. The lead 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. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Article needs more references, for example Contributions to the advancement of science has zero effects. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * 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
 * Article is very list-y in places - these will need to be to converted to prose in most cases.
 * At least two sections are only one or two sentences - Publishing and Public Examinations (neither have refs either). Short sections should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Ditto for short paragraphs.
 * This is an extremely well known university - my guess is any errors or omissions will be caught in FAC, so make sure as much as possible is correct / complete as possible.
 * History seems very sparse for the second oldest English speaking University
 * This section is under development at User:Bluap/History_of_the_University_of_Cambridge. When he's got it in an editable state, we'll be able to flesh it out further and refine. Mrh30 (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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; 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Model articles are often helpful as model and for examples to follow - see Featured_articles for many FA university examples