Wikipedia:Peer review/Improv Toronto/archive1
- 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 January 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a new article and I want to make sure that it's done correctly and swell
Thanks, Eddie Edwin cheung88 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Peer review is meant for "high-quality articles that have undergone extensive work", and this article doesn't qualify. Nevertheless, I'll make a few suggestions that might help you get started. The Improv group sounds like fun.
- Bolding in the main text should be used only for the article title that appears in the first sentence of the lead. The heads and subheads are automatically bolded, so you don't need to worry about them.
- Plain dates like 2008 are no longer wikilinked.
- A properly licensed photo in the upper right-hand corner would be good.
- Instead of linking directly to external sites from within the main text, use in-line citations. The "cite family" of templates is good, and I see that you're familiar with them.
- I see missing words, misspellings and other minor mistakes here and there. Careful copyediting is good.
- The Manual of Style (MoS) generally deprecates paragraphs of only one or two sentences. Two solutions are possible: expand or merge.
- After you have finished expanding the article, re-write the lead to make it a summary or abstract of the main text sections rather than an introduction. A good rule of thumb for the lead is to at least mention the content of each section. Furthermore, the lead should not mention ideas that are undeveloped in the text sections. Please see WP:LEAD for more details.
- Please see WP:MOS for more about all of the ideas I've mentioned in this review.
Good luck with the project. I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)