Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Warsaw (1705)/archive1

Battle of Warsaw (1705)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Foremost I need a grammar and structure review on the article as it's almost completely rewritten by me, who is not very good at English. In the future I want to nominate it to a "Featured article" and so understand that there will probably be extra work I'll have to do in order to polish it. Thanks // Imonoz (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

First off, for spelling, grammar, and other copyedits, you might consider filing a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. Done! Imonoz (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Hello. Over the last several days I've gotten a lot of help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors as you can see. I wonder now, if there's anything you recommend me to fix, apart from the fixed grammar, before I nominate it to a Featured article? Imonoz (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imonoz, If you give me perhaps an hour, I can give the article a quick run through. Finishing part of The Signpost right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or now:

PerWP:YEARLINK, "Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) and year articles (e.g. 1795, 1955, 2007) should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject." Are your year links in the article necessary.
Per MOS:OLINK "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar [should not be linked] – unless there is a contextually important reason to link: * This generally includes major examples of: geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America), locations (e.g., United States; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan; Brazil; Southeast Asia), languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish), nationalities and ethnicities (e.g., English, British, Chinese, Turkish; African-American, Hispanic), and religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)." I feel this applies to linking Poland&c throughout the article. I would consider trimming that down.

I see no other glaring problems. Perhaps consider (if this is your first FA), lodging a request For a Mentor. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Okey, I will. Just one question as I sort the links out. Should there not a double link period, throughout the whole article, or is it okey to link the same subject twice if they're not under the same content sector? Like one in the Prelude and the other in the Aftermath. If not, I will remove all of those as well. Imonoz (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imonoz Generally not, as per WP:DUPLINK "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Duplicate links in an article can be identified by using a tool that can be found at User:Ucucha/duplinks. However, in glossaries, which are primarily referred to for encyclopedic entries on specific terms rather than read from top to bottom like a regular article, it is usually desirable to repeat links (including to other terms in the glossary) that were not already linked in the same entry (see Template:Glossary link).

Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particula Bits of data, not read from top to bottom. If the list is normal article prose that happens to be formatted as a list, treat it as normal article proe.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, I don't see any other comments from other users coming in. Is it okey for me to move this peer review to the archive? Imonoz (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Great Work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]