| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is pretty much content complete. I would like someone to provide a peer review in hopes of bring it up to the standards of a GA. I think there are some problems with the article, but I did not want to delete others work because of my own thoughts only.
Thanks, Casprings (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments - link problems as follows:
- Ref 37 dead since 2010. Tagged.
- Ref 20 dead since 08/2012. Tagged.
- Ref 41 changes domain and redirects. Tagged.
- Ref 72 gives 403 "forbidden" error.
- Three refs are behind paywalls.
- Eleven refs were tagged and fixed by reflinks tool.
I'll try and look at other issues later, but the article clearly needs some detail work. You may want to see if the Guild of Copy Editors would be interested. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)