| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to improve it. Plus I am having a specific problem with formatting the References section and do not understand how to get the list to number correctly.
Thanks, Admiralquirk (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Admiral. Hopefully someone more familiar with the peer review process will come by, but in the meanwhile I'll provide a few tips:
- RE citation formatting, Wikipedia:Citation templates might help
- Watch out for proper period placement and spacing with citations. This happens a lot with newcomers. Examples: "ge[1]." instead of "ge.[1]" or "stP [1]" instead of "stP[1]"
- Try to avoid non-neutral language like "notable achievements" or "noted British particle physicist" or "well-known." For example, instead of saying "noted" tell us what he is noteworthy for.
- The structure seems a bit odd to me. Instead of having two career sections, I would try to break it out chronologically. Awards could be integrated into the subject's history as well
- The article is really large for having only five citations. An article of that size might - in some cases- have 50-100 citations. More research could really boost the article.
- Hope this helps and welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever need help with anything, I'm around. CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)