Wikipedia:Peer review/Outrageous Betrayal/archive1

Outrageous Betrayal

This article was recently reviewed and passed successfully as a

. The reviewer was even kind enough to suggest some helpful pointers on how to improve the article further, and I implemented them all save one - this Peer Review. I also added another source to a different book review since then, and will continue to do copyediting. Looking for suggestions from previously uninvolved editors to the article, on how to improve its quality status. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-
  house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks. I will begin to address some of these points, and note them here, below. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Addressing points from semi-auto Peer Review

1. Per
   [?] -  Done - There was only one instance of this, in the infobox, and I fixed it. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
   ]
2. Per
   [?] -  Done - All full dates within the article text were already wikilinked, other full dates inside of citations may not be. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
   ]
3. There are a few occurrences of
   [?] -  Done - I did a check through the article, and the first instance "it has been", is backed up by a citation to the United States House of Representatives. The second instance "apparently", is part of a citation, it is part of a title of a book. Cirt (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).[reply
   ]
4. Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of
   [?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR _t 12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]