Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi, I don't think it would hurt to have a peer review to see what is still needed to bring this GA article to FA status.
Thanks, SSZ (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Tezero
editI honestly thinks it looks nice., but here:
- Some of the sources appear unreliable (e.g. #49, #50, InfoMine).
- Some, like, 49 and 50, need publishers in their citations. #254 needs a title and URL.
- With others, the publishers need to be formatted correctly, e.g. "Parsi Times" instead of "Parsitimes.com". In general, don't use ".com"s and such in the source's name (not to be confused with the URL; there it's fine obviously) unless they're an actual part of the source's name, ideally in the logo. (For example, Pets.com is fine, but not IGN.com.)
- I think the prose looks fine from a very cursory skim, but if there's one niggling complaint that's almost impossible to anticipate and yet is a frequent cause of oppose votes, it's prose quality, so consider getting a copyedit just in case.
- Macroeconomic trends, the section, is a little over-loaded with short and choppy paragraphs.
Tezero (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will use this info to improve this article further (for your info, this article has been copy-edited already). SSZ (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)