This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how intelligible the article is to a lay person and other possible improvements.
Thanks,
Nrswanson (
talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. In terms of intelligibility, it's fairly good. If your aim is simply to produce an article that people will find useful, with no major ambitions towards "climbing the ladder", you've succeeded. The following are mostly points which would help the article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and be promoted up to Good/Featured status farther down the line:
That said, good luck with the article! :) GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how intelligible the article is to a lay person and other possible improvements.
Thanks,
Nrswanson (
talk) 18:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. In terms of intelligibility, it's fairly good. If your aim is simply to produce an article that people will find useful, with no major ambitions towards "climbing the ladder", you've succeeded. The following are mostly points which would help the article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines and be promoted up to Good/Featured status farther down the line:
That said, good luck with the article! :) GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)