Wikipedia:Peer review/FBI Buffalo Field Office/archive1

FBI Buffalo Field Office[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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I created this article a while back and it was initally assessed start class, and recently I have been adding a lot of information to the article, and I am hoping to get this article to GA or FA before the end of July and I was wondering what I could be doing to improve the article to GA/FA quality.

Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Interesting choice of article topic.

Article needs more references, for example the last three paragraphs of Task forces 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 I also note that all of the refs given are from the FBI and most are from Buffalo - there need to be more independent third-party references such as books or magazine or newspaper articles.
Article lead is not a summary of the whole article - see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
The bullet point lists need to be converted to flowing prose text. The article also gives no context - what is the history of this office - when did it open? Who is the agent in charge? How many agents work there? Comprehensiveness is a criterion for FA and to a lesser extent GA.

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 _><>°^° 13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]