Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Company of Archers/archive1

Royal Company of Archers

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'd like input on where the article needs improvement Thanks, --Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that it's taken so long for someone to comment. Here are some thoughts:

• You need to find and fix the links to
  archer and council
  , which are links to disambiguation pages.
• If you want to get this article to FA-standards, you'll need
  alt-text
  for the images, but it's not a requirement for GA status.
• The lead needs to be longer - it should stand as a decent summary of the whole article (see
  WP:LEAD
  ).
• Don't link single years like
  31 December 1713
• Avoid having paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long - combine the information.
• Per
  MOS:BOLD
  , don't use bold to emphasise the names of the prizes.
• "five hundred" should be "500", per
  MOS:NUM
• The prose needs a good going-over. Part of the problem is that sections simply recycle the text used in old sources. E.g. the history section is largely taken from its 1816 source and to be frank the language style of 1816 makes for very difficult reading. You must try to write sections like this in your own words, using source materials for reference rather than recycling their prose (unless, of course, there's a particularly good quotation you want to use, in which case you can say The Scottish historian David Smith says that the Royal Company of Archers "set new standards in battle and in drinking" during this period.[cite]) I find it helpful to find more than one source for the same topic, then I can interweave the facts presented by each source and thereby resist the temptation to copy a source too closely.
• History - what's happened since 1734?
• Significance - why not mention and link the Queen's Household earlier on, and explain it there? Why not have a section about the building - this can include the material in the "organization" section. Tell us more about! What are its architectural characteristics that got it listed?
• Can you find any more modern sources than the 19th century? Can you track down a library copy of "The Royal Company of Archers, 1676 to 1951" by Ian Hay, or the 1951-76 update?

That's probably enough to start with; I hope that someone else pops in with their thoughts. Good luck!