Wikipedia:Peer review/Wikipedia/archive4

Wikipedia

 * 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 July 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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article does not have good structure and the last review was 1.5 years ago. General review needed.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I note the editor nominating this for peer review appears to have made fewer than 10 edits to the article. Do you plan to follow through on the suggestions of this peer review? Hopefully so. Anyway, 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; 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove the s and replace them with citations. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any concrete idea about the organization of the article? -- Taku (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 7 is just a bare link, 80-82 and 108 and 109 are just links and need to provide full information. Many other refs lack publisher or access date. 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 of the references do not seem to be reliable sources - for example Wikipedia itself is not generally a RS. Where possible, independent third party sources are needed.
 * Lots of parts and paragraphs have no references - for example the h2g2 section in the first paragraph of Related projects and the fourth paragraph both lack refs.
 * The article lacks a clear narrative thread - parts of it flow well, but many parts seem to just be bits added at random.