Wikipedia:Peer review/2016 Australian school bomb threats/archive1

2016 Australian school bomb threats

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I have noted that a lot of information has been added over the past few weeks. I would love to see the value of this article improved for the benefit of the Wikipedia community.

Thanks so much! ZP 64 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZP 64! I have reviewed this document with a focus on clarity of language and readability. I have not fact-checked the article, that is, I have not looked at the reference to see if the article's information is supported nor have I looked to see if any information is missing.

I have rearranged the header, focusing each paragraph on one subject, and making it so that the culprit is at the start of a paragraph and so easier for a reader to find.
Consider adding to first paragraph in heading specific details about how many schools were threatened or how many calls were made.
What does "UZ" stand for? It is used in the header. In general, spell out acronyms at their first use (or at least make them a link to an article that explains them).
Use plainer English where possible. As an example, instead of "were of low likelihood to be" say "were unlikely to be"; instead of "quintessential", say "key".
Date ranges use an en-dash, not a hyphen (5–11 February, not 5-11 February).
Headers of sections and subsections do not have title case, just sentence case. You also don't need to format them to be bold, they are automatically formatted.
Avoid starting sentences with digits, if possible. It can make it harder for a reader to find the start of a sentence if there is no capital letter at its start.
It's not really apparent in the article how Kadar was identified and captured. If this is known I would add this to the "Arrest and sentencing" section.
I don't understand why there is a section on the general motivations of those making bomb threats. I would remove that.
"In the same period as the threats made against Australian schools (early 2017), a number of bomb threats were made to Jewish community centres..." but the Aus school threats were in 2016, not 2017?
"Following these school bomb threats, literature has been published..." Who published this literature?
Studies have shown that schools in Australia..." but there is only one citation. Do you mean "A study..."?
The syntax of the references is broken. In almost all cases a person cannot click on the links. I recommend you replace all of the references with the automatic reference generator, which ensures everything will be properly formatted in Wikipedia syntax.

Based on what I have seen I have raised the quality rating of this article to C-class. If a review of the sources showed that all facts are well sourced and nothing is missing from the article, I could see this going to B-class or higher.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HenryCrun15! Thank you so much for these suggestions, I would agree with all of them. I have started to apply some of the minor edits from this list, and will continue to work on the article shortly! Thanks again. ZP 64 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]