This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed a
FAC and I hope to re-nominate it once it has been reviewed. All comments are welcome! Thanks, Astros4477 (
Talk)18:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)reply
At a glance: the writing in the lede needs smoothing. The rest could do with going over as well. The prose needs to flow better. (I realise this is not a very specific thing; I might have a hack at it later.) -
David Gerard (
talk)
21:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Copyediting now. The list of company names in the "Construction" entry seems excessive detail to me; none of these are generally notable, certainly not for Wikipedia, and don't seem to me to particularly inform the reader of anything they might be interested in - unless they're otherwise particularly important to name. Apart from that - nice article! -
David Gerard (
talk)
21:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)reply