Wikipedia:Peer review/Riley & Scott Mk III/archive1

Riley & Scott Mk III

• 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to go through the GA process, but I'd like any quick advice or recommendations which can be given before then. Anything basic that I might have missed, any layout or word use.

Thanks, The359 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Review by Jappalang

Based on this version, there are quite a number of issues I have with the article.

• Firstly, I found it hard to keep my concentration on it. I am no car nut (though I have interest in racing vehicles) and it seems to me the article is going way over details on the development of the car and its components.
• Secondly, the article is heavily based on "World Sports Racing Prototypes". I see nothing on this fansite that indicates it could be a reliable source of information (unlike Fuller's site which was mentioned in published media as a good source of information).
• Lastly, and most crucially, the article has quite a lot of grammatical errors scattered throughout. The following are only examples of what I encountered:
  • Incorrect use of words

    "As part of Mills' design, the front end of the car was replaced with entirely new bodywork attempting to fulfill two problems."

    To fulfill two problems? That implies that they are deliberately trying to create two problems. It should be "to rectify (or correct) two problems"?

  • Spelling errors

    "aircraft design John Roncz"

    "aircraft designer John Roncz", right?

  • Jargon

    "fast enough to compete for overall wins."

    What is an "overall win"?

  • Parallel structure violations

    "This opened a large amount of empty space around the rear wheels and exposing much of the floor of the chassis."

    "This opened a large amount of empty space around the rear wheels and exposed much of the floor of the chassis." Content-wise, this begs the question of what was the floor exposed to or why should the floor be not exposed to the unknown object.

  • Mismatched sentences

    "The nose of the final Mk III was very similar to the original design model from 1993, featuring a nose which sloped downward towards a splitter extended from the front of the car."

    The nose featured a nose? If the nose in the latter clause was supposed to be the 1993 design, then it should be "The nose of the final Mk III was very similar to the original 1993 design; it sloped down towards a splitter extended from the front of the car."

  • Missing articles

    "was positioned behind cockpit"

    "was positioned behind the cockpit"

  • Awkward phrasing

    "The squares could be filled with bodywork of various shapes and sizes effectively closing or opening the holes as much as the team wished."

    "The holes could be closed off in various degrees by filling them in with bodywork of various size and shape."

I seriously advise a heavy emphasis to be paid on brushing up the language (preferably by getting a copyeditor). The next goal should then be either to obtain more reliable sources or to investigate why "World Sports Racing Prototypes" can be considered to be a reliable source. Help on the investigation can be obtained by reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Jappalang (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)