World War I reparations edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Previously, I requested a peer review of only sections 1-3 as the final part needed major adjustments. This peer review can be found here. Its advise was taken up and implemented (other than the conversion of inline refs to the sfn template). While this review is underway, I will be putting in a request with the Guild of Copy Editors to attempt to trim down the article and improve the prose were possible.
Primarily, I am looking for a peer review of the lede and section 4 of this article (the analysis section) to address any issues before undertaking a GA review of the article. All images contain alt text and there are no disambig links. All advise, comments, or suggestions are welcome (including those about the other sections of the article). Thanks for your time.
Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. (Note that I'm just copying text without links.) This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. Per your request, I started at Analysis. - Dank (push to talk)
- "post-war": My recommendation in American English is "postwar". That's what you usually see in dictionaries and print, and once words close up and drop the hyphen, that change in the language tends to become a "done deal" quickly. "Post-war" is still preferred in the UK and Australia.
Done I have changed the one instance of the "post-war", being outside of a quotation, to "postwar". The others I have left alone as that is how they have been used in the source.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "In additional to post-war loans,": "addition". Also, the reader has to go on for a while before they see what's being compared to postwar loans, and why; it might make more sense to start off with the "Peukert ... argues that the financial problems that arose in the early 1920s" sentence, so that the reader knows up front what you're giving examples of.
- DoneThanks for the catch. I have rewritten the sentence per your advise. So hopefully should be more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "He comments had reparations": "He comments that, had reparations". Also, just a suggestion: "comments" is perhaps not the best choice; it suggests (to some readers) an offhand remark of the kind that wouldn't be suitable as a cite for an encyclopedia.
- Done amendments made. Also, I had not taken into consideration how "comments" could have came off. There is 24 other cases of "comments" in the article. Should these all be replaced too?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong feeling about it, you may want to ask around. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Detlev Peukert highlights that": "highlight" is transitive in M-W and AMHER; can you find anything that lists it as intransitive?
- Done Changed the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Germany would still had": something's missing.
- Done fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "total public spending ... comprised 33 per cent of German net national product": I don't recommend "comprised" in this sense. Readers have a hard enough time with the usual meaning, roughly, "included, in full". - Dank (push to talk) 17:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Done amended sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Dank for your time, comments, and review. I have addressed your comments above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I realize that this has been open for quite some time and I'm pretty late in getting here. My immediate suggestion is that the article convert to the much superior template:sfn form of citations. With the current system, you have to scroll to the bottom each time to see what work's being used and, from experience, because it is tempting for other users to add citations in this format to article without adding the book also, they tend to degrade much more quickly once they've passed GAR/FAR. Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)