Wikipedia:Peer review/Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe/archive1
When created this article was a stub with refernces and a relatively NPOV. Now it has been altered. I am not fammiliar with expanding an article of this type any feedback would be appreciated.M-BMor 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Javascript-assisted review
[edit]The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
- If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
- There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
- This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
- 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, DrKiernan 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Review by DrKiernan
[edit]The article needs more links to other wikipedia articles. Should not be linked to blogs (which are unreliable sources) and the tags (neutrality, etc.) need clearing. DrKiernan 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)