| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how to improve the article before nominating it for good article status. I'd be thankful for any feedback
Thanks, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comments from Ktr101
- There are a few external links that redirect their paths, although that would be more of a cosmetic suggestion at this point.
- All of the images should have "|alt=..." in them, so that they can be viewed by users who are unable to see the images.
- Every "Citation needed" template should be addressed, as well as all of the other hidden category issues at the bottom of the page.
- There are multiple instances of statements without a citation after them, and these need to be cited, otherwise we do not know where the statement came from. Additionally, all maintenance templates should be addressed, and then removed. If you cannot find a citation for something, then you'll have to remove it.
- The lead could be expanded more so that it matches the length of the text, although it shouldn't be more than two paragraphs longer.
- I would focus on improving the citations and the above issues for now, as I will let someone else check your prose, as I do not feel all that confident in making sweeping suggestions at this point in time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Littlecarmen, I started reviewing this article a month ago if you haven't seen so already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)