Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been pretty stable and complete since I created it six years ago, and I think I can take it at least to GA.
Thanks, Daniel Case ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Liz
Hey @ Daniel Case:
I've done about a dozen of GA reviews, so I'll review this as if I were doing a GA review. Here's my comments/suggestions.
Overall, it's a nice article. Interesting read! There's no major issues and appears to be mostly well-written. Some of the language could be tweaked to be made more encyclopedic. A couple of paragraphs could be merged too. You've got a sufficient number of inline citations & reliable references - I thought there will be more - but I think it's okay. No copyright violations were detected, although some quotes were flagged up, these have been sourced. Article does stay on topic. Appears to be stable and neutral. Illustrated with several images with appropriate copyright tags. I hope this feedback is useful, thanks Just Lizzy( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Lizzy150:: I have gone through the article and made most of your suggested changes, or at least changed the text in some way; where I didn't I explained why I did. If you still think it sounds better as you suggested, feel free to respond further. Happy New Year! Daniel Case ( talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
![]() | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been pretty stable and complete since I created it six years ago, and I think I can take it at least to GA.
Thanks, Daniel Case ( talk) 04:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Liz
Hey @ Daniel Case:
I've done about a dozen of GA reviews, so I'll review this as if I were doing a GA review. Here's my comments/suggestions.
Overall, it's a nice article. Interesting read! There's no major issues and appears to be mostly well-written. Some of the language could be tweaked to be made more encyclopedic. A couple of paragraphs could be merged too. You've got a sufficient number of inline citations & reliable references - I thought there will be more - but I think it's okay. No copyright violations were detected, although some quotes were flagged up, these have been sourced. Article does stay on topic. Appears to be stable and neutral. Illustrated with several images with appropriate copyright tags. I hope this feedback is useful, thanks Just Lizzy( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Lizzy150:: I have gone through the article and made most of your suggested changes, or at least changed the text in some way; where I didn't I explained why I did. If you still think it sounds better as you suggested, feel free to respond further. Happy New Year! Daniel Case ( talk) 06:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)