Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because several editors have worked on it for the last few years, and we want to nominate it for GA and eventually FA status.
Thanks, LK ( talk) 06:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This article has accumulated thousands of edits over the years, yet in WP terms it still looks very much like work-in-progress. Possibly this is a case of too many cooks...? I don't know. I haven't had time to study the prose in detail, but there are some fairly obvious issues that require attention before the article could seriously be considered a contender for either GA or FA status:-
I suggest that these fairly basic points be worked on, and perhaps a copyedit, before the article is submitted again to peer review. It's an important article, well worth persevering with, and I look forward to seeing its further development. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because several editors have worked on it for the last few years, and we want to nominate it for GA and eventually FA status.
Thanks, LK ( talk) 06:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: This article has accumulated thousands of edits over the years, yet in WP terms it still looks very much like work-in-progress. Possibly this is a case of too many cooks...? I don't know. I haven't had time to study the prose in detail, but there are some fairly obvious issues that require attention before the article could seriously be considered a contender for either GA or FA status:-
I suggest that these fairly basic points be worked on, and perhaps a copyedit, before the article is submitted again to peer review. It's an important article, well worth persevering with, and I look forward to seeing its further development. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)