Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to improve its sourcing and its accessibility for readers unfamiliar with its material. I worked hard on it last summer and hope to nominate it for
Good Article sometime in the near future.
Thanks, Hibana ( talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading this was an eyesore. Huge blocks of paragraphs with varying ideas makes me wonder about its concision or structure. GA-wise, it looks like it has a good chance of passing. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 08:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not big into this area, so I'll only make some brief comments. First, the article seems well sourced, and the structure flows well. Personally, I think there is too much information in this, but that could just be me, and my lack of knowledge or interest in the subject. The one glaring issue I have with the article is that the lead section is completely unsourced, which according to the MOS is a no-no Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. The page linkage seemed to be spot on, not too much, no links to non-existent pages. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ( talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to improve its sourcing and its accessibility for readers unfamiliar with its material. I worked hard on it last summer and hope to nominate it for
Good Article sometime in the near future.
Thanks, Hibana ( talk) 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Reading this was an eyesore. Huge blocks of paragraphs with varying ideas makes me wonder about its concision or structure. GA-wise, it looks like it has a good chance of passing. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 08:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not big into this area, so I'll only make some brief comments. First, the article seems well sourced, and the structure flows well. Personally, I think there is too much information in this, but that could just be me, and my lack of knowledge or interest in the subject. The one glaring issue I have with the article is that the lead section is completely unsourced, which according to the MOS is a no-no Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. The page linkage seemed to be spot on, not too much, no links to non-existent pages. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ( talk) 18:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)