Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Outrageous Betrayal/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Outrageous Betrayal

Outrageous Betrayal

edit

This article was recently reviewed and passed successfully as a WP:GA. The reviewer was even kind enough to suggest some helpful pointers on how to improve the article further, and I implemented them all save one - this Peer Review. I also added another source to a different book review since then, and will continue to do copyediting. Looking for suggestions from previously uninvolved editors to the article, on how to improve its quality status. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I will begin to address some of these points, and note them here, below. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review
  1. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] -   Done - There was only one instance of this, in the infobox, and I fixed it. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] -   Done - All full dates within the article text were already wikilinked, other full dates inside of citations may not be. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  3. There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. "it has been", "apparently" - might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] -   Done - I did a check through the article, and the first instance "it has been", is backed up by a citation to the United States House of Representatives. The second instance "apparently", is part of a citation, it is part of a title of a book. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Outrageous_Betrayal/archive1&oldid=1094922684"