Wikipedia:Peer review/RAF Northolt/archive1

RAF Northolt

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've expanded this article quite significantly and am keen to see where improvements can be made.

Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about an interesting airport. What follows is not a complete line-by-line review but rather a short list of suggestions for further improvement.

It can be helpful to look at other articles that have reached Good Article or Featured Article status to see how other editors have handled similar materials. Quite a few GAs about airports are listed at WP:GA#Transport.

The lead, per WP:LEAD, should be a summary of the whole article and should include nothing that is undeveloped in the main sections of the article. The lead is rather skimpy for an article of this size, and it includes information about the location and the railway station, for example, that do not seem to be part of the main article.

It's usually best to expand or merge short paragraphs to make somewhat longer paragraphs. The existing article includes a lot of short paragraphs, including many one-sentence orphans. This makes the article look and feel choppy, but the problem is relatively easy to fix.

Every paragraph needs at least one citation to a reliable source. Although most of the claims in the article are sourced, some of the shorter paragraphs are unsourced even though they contain claims that are not common knowledge.

The images should be arranged in such a way that they do not overlap sections or displace edit buttons. In this article, I think you can simply move two images down from the "Battle of Britain" section into the "Later and civil and military use" section.

Per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists, I would change the list in "Units Based At RAF Northolt" to straight prose paragraphs. The individual entries in the list are somewhat mysterious. For example, many readers will have no idea what "The Service Prosecuting Authority" does. What is its function?

"It was also where Martin Clunes apparently got diverted to in the BBC mockumentary Come Fly with Me." - Needs a source.

"No. 303 Polish Squadron had the highest allied scores during the Battle of Britain." - The idea of "scores" needs further explanation. What is a "score" in this context?

"British, Polish and ANZAC aircrew: - ANZAC should be linked and spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use.

The quotation from Jules Stilwell is too short for a blockquote. It would be better as an ordinary quote embedded in the text.

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: Harrison49, I've just quickly taken a second look. I don't know if you're planning to nominate the article at GAN or FAC, but in my opinion, although the existing article is interesting and valuable, it would not pass either because of small proofing and Manual of Style issues. Here are some examples:

Royal Air Force is linked twice in the lead.

Something, probably the word "the" is missing from this sentence in the lead: "The station saw a key role in the Battle of Britain with fighters from several squadrons including No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron engaging enemy aircraft as part of defence of London."

The next to last paragraph of the "Formation" section need a source, and the direct quotation within that paragraph needs a source.

The Manual of Style suggests using double quotation marks rather than single for things like this: A proposal was made in 1912 for the area around where RAF Northolt now stands to be developed as 'Harrow Aerodrome'. This is in the first paragraph of the "Formation" section. I see other instances of single quotation marks elsewhere in the article.

Sentences in Wikipedia articles do not normally begin with digits, per the Manual of Style. See "30 Allied airmen including servicemen" in the "Battle of Britain" section, for example.

Citation 1 lacks an access date and publisher information.

Uxbridge Gazette in citation 21 should appear in italics.

These are just examples of small errors I can spot without carefully reading the article from top to bottom again. I realize that it takes a long time to learn the ins and outs of the Manual of Style (MoS) and that not everybody has trained to be a professional proofreader or copyeditor. However, there are two groups of Wikipedia copyeditors that might be able to assist you in polishing the prose and assuring MoS compliance. You might try WP:GOCE/REQ, and a short list of copyeditors appears at the bottom of WP:PRV. I would suggest seeking assistance at either place. My best. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]