Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/David Petraeus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] David Petraeus

The general has recently been mentioned very often in the news and elsewhere. The article itself has gone through some major edits for content, tone, and references-- I don't know where to go from here. Revolutionaryluddite 02:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• My main concern is with the citations. I'd like to see them all replaced with citation templates for consistent formatting and information. The in-line external links should likewise be converted to citation templates with the text unlinked or a red link. (E.g. "Airborne.", "Iron Rakkasans" and "Ahmed S. Hashim") Also the citations should follow punctuation without a trailing space. ("1983[4]," - "facial hair[7]," - "2007[11]," - "general. [13]", and so forth.) Finally the "External links" section seems a little too long. Can some of those be worked in as citations? Otherwise the article seems in pretty decent shape. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I left a series of sample edits; there are quite a few issues of WP:MOS cleanup that are needed.[1] Please see my edit summaries. In particular, review footnote placement per WP:FN (I fixed), WP:MSH capitalization on section headings, WP:MOSDATE on date formatting needed throughout, WP:GTL on excess article links in See also that should be removed, and WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation or not of sentence fragments or complete sentences in image captions. Also, pls remove the author links to him, as this is his article and those are causing incorrect bolding. External links need to be urgently reduced to only the most essential and should be minimized: see WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Also note that you don't *have* to use citation templates, but you should consistently, fully and correctly format the citations by whatever method you choose (see WP:CITE/ES). Also, you have external jumps in the body of the article; external jumps (with very few exceptions) belong in external links. If a topic is notable, it should have it's own article, with the website given there, or the website should be converted to a citation, but external jumps to outside websites shouldn't be in the body of the article. Most of the cases I saw in this article are terms that should probably have their own articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(Response) Thanks, I see that many technical edits need to be done. Still, though, what do you think about the content of the article? Does it look like anything needs to be added or tweaked? Besides fixing the grammar, etc., is there anything keeping this article from good article status? Revolutionaryluddite 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)