Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Air Transport Auxiliary

Air Transport Auxiliary
I have done my best to complete this topic. Perhaps it is ready to be taken from stub status to another.

Xcnick 03:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
A good start, overall, but there are a number of areas that could use another look: Kirill 01:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead should be longer, and should briefly summarize the major points of the entire article; two or three meaty paragraphs are typical for a developed article.
 * Somewhat denser citation might be helpful; as a rule of thumb, at least one citation per paragraph is usually a good minimum to aim for in all but the most straightforward articles.
 * Block quotations don't need to be marked off with quotes.
 * I would suggest using CMoS short-form footnotes (e.g. "Jones, Big Book, 122" rather than "Jones, E. B., A Big Book of Aircraft, 122"); if you're going to maintain a separate bibliography, there's no sense in repeating the full data everywhere.
 * It's far more typical to have "Notes" and "References" sections rather than "References" and "Bibliography" ones, in my experience.
 * Works cited directly shouldn't be repeated in a "Further reading" section; the general convention is that "Further reading" contains only the works not consulted.
 * More generally, have the works listed as further reading been consulted and merely not cited (in which case I would put them in the bibliography anyways, to avoid any question of intellectual impropriety), or not consulted at all? If it's the latter, I'd suggest that some explicit effort to determine which of them could be a resource for further expansion of the article; while I don't know enough about this topic to tell if this is actually the case here, the appearance of a large list of further reading and a small list of references in an article as short and as narrow in scope as this one suggests incompleteness rather than purposeful selection of sources.
 * The "See also" section should be trimmed if possible; in general, if something isn't worth mentioning in the text, it's not worth mentioning at all.