| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to re-add it to featured article list.
Thanks, Saadkhan12345 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by RL0919
A few preliminary comments from a scan of the article:
- A couple of sections seem heavy with block quotes. You should consider for each case whether an extended quote is really needed. If you can convey the information with a shorter quote and/or paraphrase, that is usually better.
- It's great that there are many images available to illustrate the article, but in the "Modern era" section there are so many that they seem to be crowding the text. Consider removing some images or perhaps spreading them out more.
- There are spots that stick out as "sea of blue" -- mostly lists of people's (blue linked) names. Since almost every section has a "main article" type link that would contain additional detail, this type of listing is of questionable value here. See if you can cull the examples to just the most prominent. This will also give you some space to give a bit more description about the ones that remain, so readers have more context.
- For FA you will need to pay a lot of attention to your sources and to style/formatting issues. Currently the references list is a bit messy. Most seem to be using the "cite book"/"cite web" templates, but they aren't consistent about things like using the 'first'/'last' name fields vs. using 'author', and there are some other formats, including bare URLs. I'd suggest going through every refnote to clean it up. This will also give you a chance to verify all the links and consider whether each source meets the highest standards of reliability, as will be expected in an FA review.
That's it for now. I'll try to give the article a closer read, but I can't claim any subject matter expertise, so most of my comments will probably be about higher-level issues such as the above. --RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)