| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to hopefully get it upgraded to feature article soon. Also, there are only a small number of people editing it and I want to make sure that no one person (including myself) impacts the style to greatly. Also I have written a lot of the content as staff member for the organization, so this will help to ensure a fair POV and neutrality.
Thanks, addisonschopp 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Brianboulton preliminary comments:-
- The article has a major cleanup banner, placed by addisonschopp on 3 June. Articles for peer review must be clear of such banners; is this one still in effect?
- There are several disambiguation links to fix. The toolbox in the right hand corner identifies them.
- A number of section headings breach the MOS requirements on capitalisation, e.g. "Collegiate Menber Awards", "Important Dates" and others
- The two books entered under "Further reading" are both used as sources in the article. "Further reading" is intended for books on the topic that are not cited. I suggest you change the heading to Bibliography.
- The online citations are presented as bare urls, and need to be formatted properly. See WP:CITE for information on doing this