Wikipedia:Peer review/1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack/archive1

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was recently listed as a Good Article. The article cites (61) sources, and utilizes (4) free-use images. The article is stable. Looking for any feedback/comments to help improve the article further.

Thanks,

Cirt (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

• Wow, came over from the Project - excellent article about an event I'd never even heard existed. My only qualm would be the main image - something more relevant to the actual people involved - rather than a microscopic image - would improve the initial response. Sherurcij 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In reply to Sherurcij (talk · contribs) I can only say that the particular image used is of the strain of biological agent used in the bioterror attack. But if you come up with a different free-use image to use, I'd love to see it. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing points from semi-automated peer review

I will begin to address points from the semi-automated peer review, and make a note of it here, below. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

1. When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
   • Done - I went through the article but could not find instances of this. Cirt (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
2. This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
   • Done - I think that this is something the bot picks up on a lot. I know it's a long article - but it is important that the history of the incident is discussed in one article, and not split apart. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
3. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
   • Will continue to copy-edit and seek out some fresh readers to take a look at the article as well. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC).