Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like suggestions for improving this article in any way possible. I'm one of the major contributors to this article and it would make me happy to see it upgraded to GA status.
Thanks, Paper Luigi Talk • Contributions 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a review of this article's structure and language but not a source review. Generally the article is good but it suffers from some indiciations of OR and synthesis; please see my inline comments in this diff. Below are some further comments:
Overall it's not a bad read. The groundwork is there for a successful GA but the prose and referencing need working on quite a lot. WP:GOCE may be able to help with prose. Bradley0110 ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like suggestions for improving this article in any way possible. I'm one of the major contributors to this article and it would make me happy to see it upgraded to GA status.
Thanks, Paper Luigi Talk • Contributions 04:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a review of this article's structure and language but not a source review. Generally the article is good but it suffers from some indiciations of OR and synthesis; please see my inline comments in this diff. Below are some further comments:
Overall it's not a bad read. The groundwork is there for a successful GA but the prose and referencing need working on quite a lot. WP:GOCE may be able to help with prose. Bradley0110 ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)