Wikipedia:Peer review/Eastern Front (World War II)/archive1

Eastern Front (World War II)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I belive that this is a very important part of Human history and definied the next 40 of history (1950-1990). This article deserves to become an FA.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Although this is an interesting article about an important subject, I note several problems that will prevent it from becoming GA or FA in its present condition. Ealdgyth has mentioned the incomplete or malformed citations. Here's a short list of other significant problems.

The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds 15 wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
The alt text viewer shows that the article's images need alt text. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it is not the same as captions for sighted readers. WP:ALT has details. Suitable alt text is required for FA.
The link checker finds two dead urls in the citations.
Large sections of the article lack sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except the lede paragraphs), every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged. A general bibliography or reading list can't substitute for inline citations that support the article's claims. WP:V and WP:RS have details.
Image:Reichstag flag original.jpg needs a fair-use rationale specific to this article.
Claims challenged by "citation needed" tags should be addressed.
Links to external sites should be replaced by inline citations.
The existing lead serves as an essay-like introduction rather than a lead as defined by WP:LEAD. Ideally, the lead should be a summary or abstract of the entire article rather than an introduction. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text.

It's difficult to track down reliable sources for material added in the past by other editors, and it can't be done in a hurry. However, until the article is fully sourced, it's not stable. For that reason, it's probably too soon to do a detailed analysis of the prose and of all possible Manual of Style issues. After the problems above have been addressed, please bring the article back to PR. I'd be glad to do a follow-up review that looks more closely at details. Meanwhile, I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]