Wikipedia:Peer review/Camp Lockett/archive1

Camp Lockett

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article caught my attention as it was tagged for clean-up nearly a year ago. I have expanded it well beyond what it was less than a month ago, and would like to bring this article up to standard to eventually be rated better than 'Start'.

Thanks, RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and clear that a lot of work has gone into it, I think it needs some tweaks to be B class. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Please see WP:LEAD - the lead should be two or three paragraphs for an article this long. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. May also need fewer headers / sections.
Article needs more references: the whole current status section has only one ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The History section is quite nicely referenced.
The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that should be combined with others, or if possible expanded. The two 1944 and 1946 sections could all be combined I think.
Without refs the Current status section seems to be approaching original research, which would be a no-no. It may also be a conflict of interest if you are one of the people trying to get this on the NRHP.
Any chance for some free photos of the surviving structures? Also useful to have a map giving its location (the NRHP infobox does this automatically if it is listed).
This sentence needs a ref Eventually both locations would be abandoned when the Regiment was amulgated in Monterey sometime in the 1920s. and the word "amulgated" seems to be a mis-spelling of some other word?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]