Wikipedia:Peer review/1972 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts robbery/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
I've listed this article for peer review because it's another one I've worked on for a while that I see as potential GA material and I'd like feedback before making that nomination.
Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- misc notes
- - why all the citations in the lead? Especially the multiple ones together. They're not verboten but they're also not strictly necessary, and this doesn't seem like such a wildly controversial topic where it would be. In any case even if you prefer them I think the four on the first sentence is a bit much
- - I think the lead image is a poor choice but that may be personal preference. I think a better one would be, ideally, an image of the building in question at as close of a time to the heist as you can get it. If not oh well, I just think the image is misleading
- - you should cite, somewhere, the list of paintings stolen. As is I can't see where you got this info from
- - some of the language is odd and could benefit from a copyedit "One lead has not been so easy for Lacoursière to dismiss.", stuff like that, weirdly informal, reads more like a book than an encyclopedia article, and that isn't the only instance
- - lot of sources to the blog. Who is the author? Are they a reliable source? Is it actually *published* by ARCA? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)