Wikipedia:Peer review/RAF Uxbridge/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article is ready to be listed as a good article although there is a big backlog on the military history nominations list. I'm keen to hear where improvements can be made.
Thanks, Harrison49 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - thanks for working on it. I think this owuld have a hard time at GAN in its current state, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.
- The disambig links tool on this page finds two dab links in the article that need to be fixed
- The lead does not really meet WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded to be a better summary of the article. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
- The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the prose. They need to either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Article needs more references, for example the last two paragraphs in Hillingdon House have no refs (and the one on the ghost especially needs a ref). There are also paragraphs with refs early, then some sentences following the refs which are not themselves referenced (but should be). For example The house and gardens, together with the surrounding parkland and artificial lake, created by damming the River Pinn, comprised over 200 acres (81 ha).
- My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Some of the current refs do not have enough information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Please see WP:CITE and WP:V
- Per WP:ITALIC and WP:MOSQUOTE quotations should not be in italics and should be in "quotation marks" (Churchill's quote)
- I think this is a WP:WEIGHT issue - the amount of material on WWII seems fairly slight, especially compared to the previous history. I think the WWII material should be expanded - how many aircraft were stationed there? How many sorties did they fly? What was the casualty rate for aircraft and pilots during the Blitz?
- Some of the material is organized by subject now, but I wonder if it would flow better if organized more chronologically? For example, a big chunk of the WWII section is about what happened to the facilities long after the war (museum).
- Make sure to provide context to the reader - this could use a year RAF Uxbridge became part of No. 22 Group. Units stationed at Uxbridge included the Headquarters Music Services and also the Queen's Colour Squadron of the RAF Regiment.[18]
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)