Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. More soonest. Tim riley talk 14:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Before I begin reading the text, I must at once raise the matter of the references, which are frankly inadequate:

• Dead links:
  • Refs 13, 16, 28, 30, 34, 54, 62, 63, 71, 73, 78, 82, 87, 92, 94, 104, 106, 108, 110, 111, 122, 125, 133, 147, 153, 172, 180, 182 and 184.
• Bare URLs
  • Refs 168 and 169
• Lacking page numbers
  • Refs 2, 9, 44 and 143
• Inadequate bibliographical details
  • Lacking any or all of article title, publication/website, publication or retrieval date: refs 10, 11, 36, 60, 62, 63, 73, 74, 141, 151, 170.
• Sites viewable only by subscription, e.g. ref 23, should be identified with the ((subscription)) template.
• Inconsistency in spacing and punctuation of authors' initials: e.g. Bainbridge, TH as opposed to Marshall, J.D.
• Inconsistency in adding names of publishers of journals/papers.
• Inconsistency over whether articles are "accessed" or "retrieved"
• Inconsistent use of DOIs – see, e.g., refs 23 and 42.

I'll put the review on hold for a week to give time for this to be sorted out. If and when that is done I'll read the text and review it against the GA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent improvements, but we are not there yet. I'm failing the nomination this time, but if further improvements are made I'm confident it can be promoted. Tim riley talk 21:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]