Wikipedia:Peer review/G.I. Bill/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… subsnative and important topic, but in desperate need of undivided attention from users --Briaboru (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Briaboru (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is intended for high-quality articles. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... no... it's also intended to help make articles into higher quality articles. I don't think your comment is particularly helpful, the article is not in anymore a bad state than most articles on wikipedia, and if a user doesn't get help in improving an article, then how can it improve? I have to say I find that kind of comment very unhelpful, and almost uncivil. SGGH speak! 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest:

  • Expand the lead per WP:LEAD.
  • Footnotes need to go after punctuation per WP:MOS
  • Merge some of these 2 line paragraphs together
  • You need to expand the footnotes, rather than [www.google.com] or www.google.com use [www.google.com Google] retrieved June 2 2008
  • Need to increase the number of citations, any statement made in the article needs to be cited ideally.
  • The end order of the sections needs to be (ideally) "notes/references" then "further reading/references" and then "external links"
  • Obviously all the citation needed tags and [citation needed] markers need to be furfilled.
  • Are there any suitable images?
  • you dont need to bold font the prose in the content section
  • "time limit/eligibility" I would suggest finding some alternative to the /

Thats all I can see at the moment, hope it helps. SGGH speak! 10:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]