Moscow gold 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was translated from the Spanish version, a featured article. With some feedback and corrections, and whatever suggestions the community might find appropriate, this article might be within reach of attaining featured article status. Possibly among the parts most needing reviewing are clarifications of certain phrases or sentences, general structure regarding quotations and citations, sections that may seem confusing... I don't think the coverage of the article is lacking in any way, but additions are always welcomed. In short, absolutely anything that you see that it is missing in any way, please mention.
Thanks, CarlosPatiño (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments from P.Marlow: CarlosPatiño Asked me to review this article, and here are my opinions of it. In terms of information the article seems to be quite good, but there are some things relating to style and a few translation errors that need to be sorted out. Really, it is minor issues for the most part, but if they are addressed this article will very much have the potential to be a FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
- Some sentences seem to follow a very convoluted and confusing style; for example "This episode in Spanish history has been since the 1970s the topic of numerous works of literature and essays based on official documents and records of the time.". This could be re-written as "Since the 1970s this episode of Spanish history has been the focus of many works of literature and essays, many of which relying on information from official documents and records of the time."
- As I revise this article, I try to correct any such sentences. A proof-read by another editor could really help. -CarlosPatiño
- The structure of the article is very confusing and makes the information difficult to navigate. Currently the article seems to be divided into two very large main sections, which in turn divide into topic areas, (basically splitting the article into how the episode affected Spain, and how it affected the Cold War struggle). This doesn't seem to follow any manual of style available on Wikipedia. Instead I suggest you divide the article into more general topic headings, that don't relate to particular parties but to things like History or Economic Consequences. A place to start would be create a Historical Background section, (which you could divide into International and National contexts), and write a summary of the events that led to the Moscow Gold incident within it.
- On it. Fixed most of the main section, the Cold War section will be re-organized shortly. -CarlosPatiño
- Some sections really need to be incorporated into others, i.e. The global communist revolution and the Moscow Gold. This particular section is also titled badly and uses poor formatting, (italics and inconsistent capitalization). The use of italics in title should be avoided as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Many related issues are addressed in the automated review.
- Done and done. -CarlosPatiño
- Some sections such as The Paris Gold should be developed into their own articles- they are too large and often full of irrelevant to the main article information.
- The Paris Gold is necessary to discuss the Moscow Gold. There's too little to say about it on its own to develop it into a different article I think. - CarlosPatiño
- Text from written sources. Really block quotes should be used for this, particularly as the quotes are often very large sections of text. {{quote box2}} seems to be used often to quote text that is not directly referred to in the passage; these really need to be incorporated or at least used in the the main text somehow.
All in all this is one of the better translations that I have seen. However, before it can reach FA status the style issues must be addressed; they are the thing that really brings down the quality of the article. Additionally the automated review suggestions should be responded to as they are, for the most part, quite basic things that the article is lacking in. I don't want to be overly critical but these are problems that, if left unaddressed, will prevent the article from ever reaching FA status.