Wikipedia:Peer review/Westminster Assembly/archive1

Westminster Assembly

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA. This is the first article I've put this kind of research and work into. I'd like to see how best to improve it further.

Thanks, JFH (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• 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.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• 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.

• Westminster Assembly links to 1 disambiguation page (fix links).
  • Directory for Public Worship (redirect page)
    • Directory for public worship

-(t) Josve05a (c) 03:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from LT910001

Firstly, thanks for your edits to this article and Wikipedia. This article reads excellently and is very thorough, and it's a pity there's only one of you! This article is not only well-sourced, but there do not appear to be any problems with spelling or grammar, nor with the images. I'd encourage you to nominate for good article status, which is the next step for your article on the road to an FA nomination. There it will undergo a more thorough review, and will be eligible for FA nomination. Given the article's current quality I am sure that the GA review will not be a problem. If you want (as I'm sure you are doing), you can view good articles or featured articles of a similar topic for inspiration and comparison. I wish you all the best in this regard. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! --JFH (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)