| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is listed as a start-class when it should be at least a B, if not higher. A lot has been added since it was last evaluated and really could use another look.
Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Eric Schucht: It sounds like you maybe should be posted at WP:MHA#REQ rather than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria:I wasn't aware that was a thing, so I appreciate you for letting me know. If you could give me some advice on how to improve the article, I'd greatly appreciate it. If you think its good to go, then I'll list it for assessment.Eric Schucht (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Lead section definitely needs to be significantly expanded - given the article size three paragraphs would be good
- More citations are needed in general - ideally we'd want everything to be cited
- Avoid positioning images such that small bits of text get sandwiched between them
- Some of the references used, such as findagrave, are less than reliable
- Citations should be complete, not just URLs, and should ideally be formatted consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I went through the page and reformatted and updated it's sources. I'm going to remove the peer review request and request a rating reassessment. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd appreciate it if you could leave your feedback on the page's talk page so its easier for others to see. Thank you Eric Schucht (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- G'day Eric Schucht, you could probably close this per the instructions at WP:PRG. Alternatively, I could do it for you, let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea how to close this. If you could do it for me Peacemaker67, I'd very much appreciate it. Eric Schucht (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- No prob. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)