Wikipedia:Peer review/Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd/archive1

NMUK

This is my first article and, basically, I want to make sure I am doing it right!! I have read through as much of the Help section as I can, but there is so much, and it's all a little daunting. I welcome any feedback, positive or negative. John the mackem 17:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)John_the_mackem[reply]

The images need to be tagged with their copyright status, as outlined in WP:ICT. --Carnildo 19:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had? If you click on the image, the copyright tag is in there. Have I done it wrong? John the mackem 20:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)John_the_mackem[reply]
- Must have missed it -- I think the "copyrighted any purpose" tag is the smallest one around, and the colors blend in quite well with the "Classic" skin. In any case, the description page needs to indicate the source of the image. --Carnildo 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference section links should be labeled
- Thanks to everyone who has given feedback. I have made all of the suggested changes. Does anyone have any comments regarding the subject matter? John the mackem 19:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our article naming convention requires us to avoid abbreviations so I have renamed this Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Ltd and bypassed the consequent redirects except here and at the noticeboards (because I thought that those last few might confuse John). Comments on this clear and interesting article:

1. Avoid informal contractions like "it's". 2. Link more of the text to specific sources. For example "It is expected up to 18% of the plant's overall power needs can be met through these turbines." could do with a citation. 3. The last part of ==History== has too many one-sentence paragraphs. 4. Consider restructuring the ==Plant functions== section to reflect the tripartite division and avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
I hope that this is helpful. —Theo (Talk) 12:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theo, thanks for all the input. Greatly appreciated. I did read the rule on acronyms, but I also read that they are OK in situations when the subject is almost totally known by it's acronym. I thought this was one of those cases, but on reflection I think you're right. Thanks for doing the changes for me; I don't think I could have managed it!

The citations are quite difficult, because a lot of it comes from my own personal experience and knowledge (I work at the factory). With regards to the one-sentence-paragraphs, I understand what you mean - I will have a look at reworking it. Thanks again. John the mackem 20:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]