Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… subsnative and important topic, but in desperate need of undivided attention from users --Briaboru (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Briaboru (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is intended for high-quality articles. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... no... it's also intended to help make articles into higher quality articles. I don't think your comment is particularly helpful, the article is not in anymore a bad state than most articles on wikipedia, and if a user doesn't get help in improving an article, then how can it improve? I have to say I find that kind of comment very unhelpful, and almost uncivil. SGGH ^speak! 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

• Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
• Footnotes need to go after punctuation per WP:MOS
• Merge some of these 2 line paragraphs together
• You need to expand the footnotes, rather than [www.google.com] or www.google.com use [www.google.com Google] retrieved June 2 2008
• Need to increase the number of citations, any statement made in the article needs to be cited ideally.
• The end order of the sections needs to be (ideally) "notes/references" then "further reading/references" and then "external links"
• Obviously all the citation needed tags and [citation needed] markers need to be furfilled.
• Are there any suitable images?
• you dont need to bold font the prose in the content section
• "time limit/eligibility" I would suggest finding some alternative to the /

Thats all I can see at the moment, hope it helps. SGGH ^speak! 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]