Wikipedia:Peer review/Baden-Powell House/archive1

Baden-Powell House edit

The Baden-Powell House article has been made from scratch to GA status in the recent weeks. To further improve it to FA quality, we herewith invite other wikipedians to give recommendations for this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles).

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
- The text was already enhanced for previous recommendations, and the number of paragraphs is now reduced to two, in compliance with WP:LEAD. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
- All word combinations that should not be broken on linebreaks have now been provided with non-breakable spaces. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
- The sections have been re-ordered, in compliance with WP:GTL
This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
- All references have been adjusted, and applied to the appropriate texts as footnote, in compliance with the WP:WIAFA recommendations. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas.
Thanks, Andy _t 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although automatically generated, these recommendations are highly appreciated. Being technically in character, they are easy to follow up and the recommendations are relatively easy to comply with. Thanks for bringing them out, and I hope to have adjusted the article to comply with them all. For the rest I would appreciate further recommendations by human readers as well. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Look at footnote 1, it has no text after it so we don't know what it is. Rlevse 23:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Repetitive use of the excellent peerreviewer script has ensure that this article now complies with a lot of WP standards. Any care to give a human touch to this peer review, please?