Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Inglis (engineer)/archive1

Charles Inglis (engineer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I feel this article would benefit from a peer review. I would like to take this to FAC eventually, if peer reviewers think it likely to be suitable, (Engineering is heavily under-represented there and this would be the first FA about a civil engineer) but my last FA was three years ago so I am a bit rusty. In particular a check on the prose would be helpful as my previous FAs have been picked up for this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things, not a full review by any means:

The automated peer reviewer found some things that should be checked on:

It says the article is short for a FA, and I have to agree.
~~The article is not consistent between British and American spellings.~~ It seems to be mistaken.
Checklinks, if one turns on reporting of everything but good links, reports some subscription-only links and another that looks suspicious at first glance.

For a check on the prose, I advise listing it at WP:GOCE/REQ or WP:GOCE/FA, although I can try to do some copyediting myself; are you worried about errors (I can help on that), style (I can try, but no guarantees), or what?
An additional thing - the references are not currently in any consistent format; I suggest putting them all into {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. formats. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allens. Thanks for taking a look at this. I agree with you that an FAC is a while away yet (I would like to improve the depth of coverage first) but if you could take a quick look over the prose style (in particular I know I tend towards a lot of "in 1919..." sentences) or any grammatical mistakes that'd be fantastic. With regard to the refs, I don't think I can replace many of the subscription only ones, but what was the one you thought suspicious? I'll try to take a look at the references when I get a moment- Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite welcome. I've started doing a copy-edit of it (first pass done, will go over again). I've marked the suspicious one (which, upon examination, is now an essentially dead link) with {{dead link}} (it's for his honorary degree). I understand about not being able to replace the two subscription-only ones; I'd just make sure they are marked with {{subscription required}}. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]