Hopewell tradition edit
- 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 September 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've recently done alot of work to it and was wondering how it was working so far. I recently re-wrote, sourced and cited for the majority of the page, created a few maps, and collected some images. Sometimes you can be too close tho, and I was wanting an outside( of my own head, lol) opinion.
Thanks, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Not sure the succession box belongs at the top of the article, maybe move to the bottom.
- Images need captions and if the captions are sentence fragments, they should not have a full stop.
- Citations should be placed per WP:CITE i.e. immediately after punctuation if possible.
- Don't think you really need to link material.
- I think you could reduce the large numbers of sections by merging.
- End of the "Politics and heirarchy" section has a newline and a period.
- Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
- Last few sentences of the Mounds section is unreferenced.
- "Culture" or "culture" in the headings.
- For ranges of numbers, use the en-dash, not the hyphen, per WP:DASH.
- References like you have in this article can be split so you have a "References" hdg at the same level you currently have, then a "General" hdg for those ones at the end, and a "Specific" for the web cited ones.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)