| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there were calls for this article’s improvement in 2007 and 2009, both related to citation. I, among other Wikipedians have improved the article significantly since those dates. However, I do not feel qualified to remove these tags from the article (additional citation & primary source) without some manner of review by a fresh set of eyes. In addition, I deem this at least sufficiently necessary due to the general lack of participation on the talk page of late.
Many thanks, Jdcollins13 (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the "primary source" banner from the page; this problem appears to be cured, with the citations of various magazine articles, etc. I haven't decided yet on the "additional citations" one - I am bothered by the presence of some paragraphs (outside the lead) without at least a reference at the end of the paragraph. In terms of the lead, the references there should (IMO) ideally be in the main body only, with the lead simply summarizing what is already in the main body. Allens (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do run the automated peer review - it's finding some things. Allens (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Done --used the automated peer review as suggested and posted the results on the talkpage, after making some initial changes. Thanks Allens...
Note: The article does not at present qualify for peer review, having a major citations banner in place. Large parts of the article have few or no citations. This aspect needs to be addressed before the article is renominated here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)