Wikipedia:Peer review/Vanajan Autotehdas/archive1

Vanajan Autotehdas
This peer review discussion has been closed. I have built this article little by little by using the best available sources. Any advice how to further improve it? The target is Featured Article status.

As English is not my native language the text may contain typos and obscure sentences which you are more than welcome to fix.

Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot review Bot review comments copied from this page. My comments below in Italic. --Gwafton (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 35 mm, use 35 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 35&amp;nbsp;mm.[?]
 * Fixed. Please edit or tell me if you spot any places where the non-breaking space should be applied.


 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Repeated only where it is relevant.


 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]
 * In my opinion it is good as it is but I am also open for other views and ideas.


 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * I'd prefer avoid of splitting, I don't know how to outline a split-off article.


 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * There are some redundancies due to the structure but I am open to suggestions.


 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * I think the ones which are here are for a reason but I am ready to change my mind if someone can tell me why any of the remaining are disturbing him/her.


 * 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.[?]
 * Seems to match pretty much – but no article is so good that it couldn't be better.
 * --Gwafton (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)