Wikipedia:Peer review/Ulysses S. Grant/archive1

Ulysses S. Grant

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for review because I'm interested in getting this article past B-status, and a set of fresh eyes would aid me and other contributors on the Ulysses S. Grant article right now. Regards, Jd027^talk 01:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has a large bibliography, but only 30 in-line citations in a total of c.7,000 words. There are two major banners requesting further citations to sources. Until this is tackled the article is not ready for peer review – see Peer Review mainpage: Articles must be free of major cleanup banners. Suggest you withdraw, tackle the problem, then resubmit. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you for the suggestion. Jd027 (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I was going to make a few comments, so here they are, hopefully not too late - some suggestions for improvement on some fairly obvious things that stood out on a quick read through.

The lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs (currently 5) see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short sections as they impede the narrative flow of the article. For example the section "Early life and family" is only three sentences and could probably be combined with the Education part of the next section.
Per WP:HEAD do not repeat article titles or headers in subheaders, so Education and the Mexican-American War should not have a subsection titled "Mexican-American War" As noted above, I thnk the early and Education could be combined and then Mexican American War could be its own section.
I agree refs are the biggest problem here. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Make sure refs are to reliable sources - what makes adherents.com reliable?
Avoid lists and trivia - the In memoriam section needs to be trimmed and rewritten as text.
Two horseback statues look very similar and I would only keep on of the two photos

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.