Girton College, Cambridge edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article should change radically over the next few weeks. We would like to know if our work is moving in the right direction towards WP:GOOD, and maybe WP:FAC.
Thanks, Randomblue (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Note: The request for peer review is premature, given the current state of the article, with underconstruction banners etc. I will be happy to review it when it is developed further, but by your own statement the article is about to "change radically", so I will wait until you notify me that it had achieved stability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Wizardman: As Brian noted, if you're planing on radically changing this article than this is premature. As such there will be more of a skim review than a full one. However, here are a few comments that can still be implemented despite everything changing up:
- All citation needed tags and the like have to be addressed, and make sure there's at least one citation per paragraph.
- The history section will need to be expanded upon per the tag, but structure-wise it looks like it will be good.
- For the mistresses section, adding a sentence or two on what they are and what they do would be beneficial.
- The Main site section is actually in good shape, though the collections in the Lawrence room do not need to be bolded.
- I'm not a fan of in popular culture sections, and very few are, so I'd just remove i.
- The People's Portraits section doesn't lok like it needs much expanding.
- The citation format is a bit confusing. Doing it that way for books is entirely fine, but I can't figure out which reference does to which website. Have the formatted references actually be the inline citations instead of adding an extra step.
- If you're still unsure about some formatting, look through Category:FA-Class Universities articles for examples of good ways to structure this.
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)