I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for Good article consideration. It isn't quite Good article satisfactory yet, but I would like some editors inputs on the matter. Thanks!
Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 20:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @CookieMonster755: I guess you will have better luck getting a copyedit first at WP:GOCE/REQ. Peer review doesn't seem to be very active.Anyway, you may want to consider splitting the lead up into separate paragraphs. Additionally, you may want to get rid of the "Planning" header. For a GA quality article, the lead should make it obvious that this proposal was never built. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you @Epicgenius:, I will make those changes soon. CookieMonster755✉ 16:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For the
Get rid of the Planning header
part, I meant, bringing up all the subsections with 3 equals signs to main sections with 2 equals signs. epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
