Wikipedia:Peer review/Microprinting/archive1

Microprinting

I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently over the past couple of days added substantial content to the article and essentially rewritten the entire article. I've improved the article as best I can and request feedback for further improving this article for good article review. Please ping me when ready to review. Thanks. David Condrey ^{log talk} 07:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've made a quick pass over this for a few grammatical errors; it may be worth checking to see if I've missed anything similar.
• Something to avoid is the use of paragraphs of one or two lines; there's one in the lead which is particularly prominent, and a few elsewhere throughout.
• Links with disambiguation terms (like "intaglio (printmaking)") should be piped to hide the baggage; in this instance you want "intaglio". The bracketed terms are more for indexing articles than for use in prose.
• "Sandwiching" text between a right- and left-aligned image is to be avoided; where possible try to offset these images vertically so they aren't on the same level horizontally. It might be worth dropping one of the images used to facilitate this too, though which one is up to you.
• Acronyms should be spelt out first, then noted in brief, so "MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition)" should be "Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR)" (there's also no need for the title casing here, either).
• Measurements should ideally use some sort of conversion ({{convert}} is your friend), so inches can also be read as centimetres, etc.
• "See also" links shouldn't include anything already linked in the article.
• A good chunk of the article seems to be uncited; if you have a few paragraphs supported by one citation, repeat it in each of those paragraphs—this isn't necessary in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, however, but the break between paragraphs would necessitate it if this is the case. Obviously, if this isn't the case then the material will need to be cited to a reliable source of its own.
• I hope these comments have been of some use to you; I tend to comment on, rather than action, minor changes as I feel it's good to know why they're needed, but a lot of what's going on here is relatively minor. The last point however is the most important. GRAPPLE ^X 10:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grapple X: thanks for reviewing the article. Sorry for the delay in replying. I just saw your comments this evening. I will review your comments more thoroughly and reply afterwards. Just wanted to let you know.. thanks. David Condrey ^{log talk} 08:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)