Wikipedia:Peer review/Reform Act 1832/archive1
Appearance
The article's a bit long, but I feel that the subject matter justifies depth and detailed consideration. Any suggested improvements would be welcome (especially ideas for making the prose more concise). Thanks. -- Emsworth 15:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not that long. I don't like the third paragraph of the lead - the text of Act is never mentioned again and there is plenty more to summarize that could fill in for that section. The Unreformed House of Lords section is a little flabby (especially as it has its own main article) as is the Movement for Reform. Personally, I found them interesting, but they could be pruned back without losing much substance. Some of the inline citation placement is a bit odd: there are some uncited trailing sentences in certain paragraphs. The Assessment section gets a bit wishy-washy at the end "Other historians", "One writer" etc. Since they are referenced you may as well give their names. Very interesting though, vast improvement over the list that was there before. Yomanganitalk 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)