Wikipedia:Peer review/Marcus Trescothick/archive2
This article has had a peer review archived here, but after a fresh input into the article, another Peer review from either a cricketing or style/prose view would be welcome –MDCollins (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Automated Peer review: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
- Removed link to stand-alone year: no context there really.
- If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
- In infobox.
- As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
- As far as I can see, the 'th' is only added to ordinal numbers (100th Test), and not on dates
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
- Not displayed, only in conjunction with –
- This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
- The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- One case, inside quotation so can stay.
- 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,
- Minor points addressed –MDCollins (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)