Wikipedia:Peer review/R.V. College of Engineering/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have rearranged the sections quite a lot in this article RVCE, and I feel it looks a lot better now. I want someone else to review the article, and then maybe I will submit it for a reassessment.
Thanks, MikeLynch (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I always like seeing articles about schools. I'm not sure what level of reassessment you are thinking of, though PR is meant for articles nearing GA or FA. The existing article is not nearly ready for GA, but here are a few suggestions for improvement.
- The lede should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than simply an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to try to include in the lede at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has a complete general explanation.
- The section heads and subheads use a capital letter on the first word and on any proper nouns; otherwise, they should be lower-case. For example, "Environmental Initiatives" should be "Environmental initiatives".
- Many parts of the article lack citations to reliable sources. For example, the "Facilities" section is completely unsourced even though it includes information that is not common knowledge. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that is unusual, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the citation should be placed at the very end of the paragraph.
- Images should be positioned wholly within the sections they illustrate. They should not overlap two sections or displace edit buttons or create text sandwiches. MOS:IMAGES has details.
- Abbreviations like MoUs need to be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use rather than on a later use.
- The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs because they create a choppy look and feel. Two ways to avoid these are to expand or to merge. You could, for example, expand the "Environmental initiatives" section by adding details about the rainwater system. What are its major components? How does it work? How effective is it?
- WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose paragraphs when feasible. I think you could do this with "Departments and courses" and "Notable alumni". For example, one sublist could become a single sentence: "Allied departments specialize in physics, chemistry, mathematics, humanities, and in placement and training.
- Newspaper names in the citations should be in italics.
- The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.
- Citation 23 lacks an author name and date of most recent access. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)