Wikipedia:Peer review/4INFO/archive1

4INFO

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been majorly improved.

Thanks, MarkMillerITPro (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. This tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:4INFO - and Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=4INFO - found link problems and dead links. Suggest archiving hyperlinks in article with WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive. Recommend archiving all links in article this way.
4. Dablinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=4INFO - shows no problems here, good job.
5. Reflinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/reflinks.py?page=4INFO - shows no necessary changes, good job here.
6. Alt tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=4INFO - shows at least one image that could use alt image text.
7. Citation bot tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=4INFO - shows no changes required.
8. Recommend posting to WP:GOCE to request a copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
9. Suggest placing neutrally-worded notice to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects linking to this Peer Review and asking for additional comments.
10. Per WP:LEADCITE, all info in lede should be already cited to in-line cites, below later in article main body text, thus, lede intro sect itself should not need cites, IFF info cited later in article, and it should be.
11. Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect should be able to adequately standalone as a summary of the entire article's contents and all its subsections. Currently, lede should be expanded in order to do this properly.
12. Copyvio Detector tool - shows - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=4INFO&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - no copyvio likely - good job here !!!
13. External links - A bit of an imbalance with portals, recommend converting to {{Portal bar}}.
14. History - most of article looks like it is history, and yet it is disconnected and lacks flow for reader. Suggest restructuring whole article in straight chronological format, under subsect, History, broken up by periods.
15. For example, after sect History, you have Privacy sect with info on 2012 partnership which belongs in History.
16. Then you have sect Acquisitions with info that also belongs in History sect. These other sects are too small to standalone on their own.
17. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Nice little article, good start, could use some work, as recommended, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MarkMillerITPro

1. I may be doing this wrong.
2. Wow, Thank you so much. A lot to work with. A lot I don't understand right now. I'm dealing with my wife's health urgency that may keep me extra busy for weeks. Hope to get back to this. TY!

MarkMillerITPro (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)