Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I think is a pretty good article and just wanted to see what others think can be improved. It was last reviewed in 2006, which is a lifetime ago!

Thanks, Superegz (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some issues that I noticed:
  • MOS:CITELEAD is not followed
  • There are a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged into longer ones.
  • Some things are missing inline citations. Some examples of this:
    • The brief alliance and subsequent invasion may allude to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa.^{[original research?]}
    • In his London Letter on 17 April 1944 for Partisan Review, Orwell wrote that it was "now next door to impossible to get anything overtly anti-Russian printed. Anti-Russian books do appear, but mostly from Catholic publishing firms and always from a religious or frankly reactionary angle."
  • Although not required, I personally would try to reference the plot inline to reliable sources. This step improves verifiability.
  • The citation styles used are a total mishmash. Pick one style and stick with it.
  • A considerable amount of the references are to online WP:UGC or WP:SPS, therefore not qualifying as RS.
  • File:15th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).jpg What makes this PD-US?
  • File:Animal Farm artwork.jpg needs the appropriate PD-UK and PD-US tags.
  • Captions on some of the images are far too long. Try to keep them to 3 lines. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say that this is months away from fac, and probably weeks away from GA. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]