Kayaking edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like someone to cast an experienced eye over it and give it an assessment (B, C etc.) with suggestions for moving it to the next level
Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments from User:PrairieKid edit
Howdy- Looking at the WP:Kayak criteria (which I feel is most appropriate), I think it is about "Start Class", leaning towards "C-class". In some places, it is closer to B and in others, it is closer to Start.
Refs: Some refs needed. Most are tagged, but there are a few more I am having trouble with. Cite. 4 does not cover everything in that paragraph. It doesn't mention the wooden kayaks comment, or many of the categorical stuff. Nothing in Configurations is cited. There are "Uncited Refs." which I have never seen and don't really understand. ***Start Class.***
Prose/Coverage: It does cover part of the topic, but needs a lot more. I would like a little more on the history of kayaking and possibly more on kayaking today. (The popularity of the sport.) Configurations seems to be the same as Design. It is well-written, though, which is nice and I don't notice too many issues with grammar. I am not too fond of the list at the beginning. I'll direct you to WP:List. ***Start Class***
It is a good start but it certainly needs more citations and more content. PrairieKid (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)