Wikipedia:Peer review/Mass spectrometry/archive1

Mass spectrometry

I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel it is a good article. It has a lot of information but it's missing that extra little bit in terms of formating for wikipedia (which should be fairly straight forward for someones that's used to it)

Thanks,

CyclePat (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's quite FA-ready yet. Here are a few suggestions:
  • The bulleted list at the end of the lead should be converted into prose. Also the lead isn't really a consise summary of the article.
  • A number of the sections are inadequately referenced, or not at all. I should expect to see about 1-2 references per paragraph.
  • The first usage of a unit should be wikilinked, as per "23u".
  • Please run the page through a spelling/grammar checker. I'm finding errors such as "travelled", "accelarates", "ionisation", "analyser" and "Labelling". (Unless these are British English spellings.) Is "quantitation" a word?
  • There are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Most of these should be expanded or merged. There may also be too many one-paragraph sections. In the "Other Separation Techniques Combined with Mass spectrometry" section, for example, I'm not sure I see the benefit of three different one-paragraph sections. That would work just as well with wikilinks in place of the "See also the main article on...".
  • I shouldn't be seeing the article title repeated in the table of contents, per Wikipedia:MoS#Section_headings.
  • Most of your references appear to be in decent shape, with the exception of note #29, which consists of just a link.
  • You may need to clean out some of the External links section per the tag.
  • I'd like to see a few more illustrations in the article to help out with the concepts.

  Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)