Wikipedia:Peer review/Adolf Galland/archive1

Adolf Galland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a while ago Dapi89 (talk · contribs) and I had been working on this article, with the bulk of the work attributed to Dapi89 so far. Unfortunately Dapi89 chose to retire from Wikipedia leaving the article more or less where it stands now. I want to continue his work and move the article further up the quality scale. To establish a new baseline for improvement I seek feedback on the article as it stands now.

Thanks, MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbus227. I've had a reasonably thorough look at the article and it looks very good. Excuse the numbered points but it might help to improve the article.

The lead appears quite long (too many paragraphs). It's not a hard and fast rule but four paragraphs is the recommended max. Painful as it might be to do it I think some detail could be removed from the lead to compress it.
The article itself appears quite long but it does seem to stay on topic and it is a big subject to tackle, I would look through it again for anything that isn't directly related to Galland. Another option would be to split it but I don't know quite how that would be achieved with this article as his life and the events are all part of the same story.
It looks well referenced with many citations reflecting the length of the article, there are whole paragraphs though with many statements/claims in that are supported by just one cite at the end, it would get picked up at FA level.
One note is uncited (Blenheim identification - who is making the assumption?), the other two shouldn't need citing
The multiple stacked navboxes can be collapsed to tidy things, it's in use at Supermarine Spitfire.

done

Hope that helps, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments

Check UK English spelling: I found hospitalization and center.
- I fixed these.
I intend to go through the article and make it comply with WP:DASH. There are too many jumbled hyphens and dashes to list here.
- I did the dash work.
Citation style is various. To prep the article for FAC, the citations should be made more consistent. Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For instance, the imdb.com cites don't have a publisher or accessdate. The Cull et al reference has no page numbers, and the Cull 1995 cite does not refer to a book (unless the year is wrong). I added a full stop to the end of one page range to match article style.
Three dots—ellipses—should be properly formatted per WP:ELLIPSIS.
The external links could use some more descriptive prose to tell the reader what to expect. For instance, one of them has a photo of Galland's gravestone but the link does not say so. Another external link to svetskirat.net uses copyright violation photos and non-English language. Binksternet (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Looks very good. Three minor suggestions: (1) I would not normally use blockquotes for anything shorter than four lines on a computer screen. The one-liner about Mickey Mouse looks especially odd, but the two- and three-liners look odd to me as well. (2) Nothing should be linked from inside a direct quotation; therefore the two links in the block quotation in "Last combat" should be removed. (3) I don't think you need to link traffic accident in the "Personal life" section. Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]