Wikipedia:Peer review/British Rail Class 390/archive1

British Rail Class 390

• 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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want the article to be re-evaluated for quality and importance. This article needs to be reassigned a different quality and importance but I don't know what. Please re-evaluate this article and assign the correct quality ranking and/or importance.

Can you also point out the places that can should be improved to make this a Good Article.

Thanks, Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As I mentioned on the nominator's talk page, peer review is not really for assessment, but this seems about like a C class article to me. With an eye to WP:GAN, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Biggest problem as I see it with the article is a lack of references (which is already noted with a cleanup tag at the top of the article). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole sections without a single ref (first two sections for example). Without refs there is no way this is getting to FA
• 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 generally come directly AFTER punctuation (no space), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• 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 but the APT speed record seems to be only in the lead.
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - for example the APT is linked twice in two sentences in just the lead.
• Spell out numbers under ten
• Whole article needs to be copyedited - it is July 2009, but there are still sentences like This is expected to continue until mid-September 2008. Can this be updated?
• Also avoid use of words like current - use things like "as of 2009" instead
• COuld the list of names be split out as its own article per WP:Summary style?
• Images are nice but licenses may be an issue - one example File:Virgin trains 390012 cab interior.jpg has a tag in the image linking it to a different website than is mentioned in the file for it.

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). I do not watch poeer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)