Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
After a quick scan I've found some MOS issues, listed below. I have not given the article a full review yet, and will wait until the major MOS issues are resolved before doing so.
The intro is still too small. --
ErgoSum88 (
talk)
17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, the lead image and images of detailed diagrams may be sized larger to allow better viewing, but normally no larger than 300px, so I changed some of them around so it would look better. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I fixed some. Note that journal citations do not need access date and publisher. Regarding {{ cite journal}}, I prefer using much shorter style, which is much easier to type and read in plain text (cf. the codes of this [1] and this [2] references; note that most GAs have ~50 of them and that {{ cite journal}} is very sensitive; e.g., Title instead of title will be ignored), but I shall change it to {{ cite journal}} if required? This is a non-issue. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
I think I have covered everything, and I haven't even given the article my "thorough" review yet. On second thought, this probably would have qualified as a quickfail, as it might take longer than seven days to fix all the issues. But the seven day limit is mostly a suggestion and as long as I receive a reply within seven days I am willing to overlook the time limit. If an editor has not expressed an interest in addressing these issues within seven days, that is usually when I fail the article. So... good luck! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading the article, I have come across some issues, listed below.
I have also made numerous minor edits to the article to improve readability and understanding. Although I have taken care not to change anything I didn't understand, please check to be sure I haven't changed anything I shouldn't have. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Very well done. And thanks for adding the proper cite templates, it looks much better now. Good job, article passed, and here is your green circle! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe 1882-1922 is 40 years, not 30... though I cannot find the correct information to clarify it. Syhon ( talk) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
After a quick scan I've found some MOS issues, listed below. I have not given the article a full review yet, and will wait until the major MOS issues are resolved before doing so.
The intro is still too small. --
ErgoSum88 (
talk)
17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, the lead image and images of detailed diagrams may be sized larger to allow better viewing, but normally no larger than 300px, so I changed some of them around so it would look better. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I fixed some. Note that journal citations do not need access date and publisher. Regarding {{ cite journal}}, I prefer using much shorter style, which is much easier to type and read in plain text (cf. the codes of this [1] and this [2] references; note that most GAs have ~50 of them and that {{ cite journal}} is very sensitive; e.g., Title instead of title will be ignored), but I shall change it to {{ cite journal}} if required? This is a non-issue. NIMSoffice ( talk) 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
I think I have covered everything, and I haven't even given the article my "thorough" review yet. On second thought, this probably would have qualified as a quickfail, as it might take longer than seven days to fix all the issues. But the seven day limit is mostly a suggestion and as long as I receive a reply within seven days I am willing to overlook the time limit. If an editor has not expressed an interest in addressing these issues within seven days, that is usually when I fail the article. So... good luck! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading the article, I have come across some issues, listed below.
I have also made numerous minor edits to the article to improve readability and understanding. Although I have taken care not to change anything I didn't understand, please check to be sure I haven't changed anything I shouldn't have. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Very well done. And thanks for adding the proper cite templates, it looks much better now. Good job, article passed, and here is your green circle! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe 1882-1922 is 40 years, not 30... though I cannot find the correct information to clarify it. Syhon ( talk) 13:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)