Wikipedia:Peer review/WildBird/archive1

WildBird
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is new and unreviewed. I have checked it for spelling and grammar and no corrections are necessary.

Thanks, Max Deployment (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded to encompass all the subjects in the article. See WP:LEAD for lead criteria. There isn't much to this article but I still think a couple more sentences could be added to the lead, perhaps discussing the current editor, set up of the magazine, and circulation. Just to name a few. Usually in-line citations are found at the end of sentences or end of paragraphs. The Special issues section has no references. There are a few citations that are sprinkled into the middle of sentences, these should be moved. See WP:CITE, website references should at least have publisher and accessdate along with the url. Why is the category a bunch of red links? This doesn't seem right can it be fixed? The article is very sparse, is there anything else that can be put in about the magazine? Perhaps not, as I can't readily think of any suggestions, but it's worth mentioning. I think that does it for my review. I don't usually watch this page so if you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. If you found the review helpful please consider reviewing someone else's article here at peer review or going to WP:GAC and reviewing an article. There is a significant backlog of articles to be reviewed and not enough editors willing to review. Cheers. H1nkles citius altius fortius 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)