Wikipedia:Peer review/Lombo Pocket Watch/archive2

Lombo Pocket Watch[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…his career is over and is now able to be easily improved.

Thanks, LPWRHR (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be 2 or 3 paragraphs (as mentioned in the previous PR too). Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Please see WP:LEAD
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the article needs many fewer sections / headers too. See WP:HEAD
Biggest problem as I see it is that the article needs more references, for example the first seven sections in his 2 year old career have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix things like In preparation for the 2008 Courage Under Fire Chariots of Fire, Lombo Pocket Watch won two country free-for-all's at Menangle and Newcastle, the latter in 1:55.5, complete with a 26.0 second final quarter[19].
Any chance for an image or two?
Article needs a serious copyedit to clean up grammar. There is a lot of jargon to explain or avoid too - see WP:JARGON

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]