Wikipedia:Peer review/Avalon, California/archive1

Avalon, California

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 have done a lot of work on improving this article, and I would like to bring it up to GA status. In particular, I'd like to know where other people think that additional references would be helpful. Any other comments or suggestions would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, mcd51 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem that I can see right away is that more citations and references are needed in this article. An article of this size and scope needs more citations. Another problem that I can see is that the headings of each section have every word capitalized. This should not be. For example, if one of my section headings was, "Sights and Sounds of Basketball" that section heading would not be correct according to wiki standards. Instead it should read, "Sights and sounds of basketball." Note that only the first word of the heading is capitalized. Another point to make is that I feel that the article could be expanded.

Look at the Cleveland, Ohio article. It is a featured article and you could take alot of pointers from how the article is written. As far as the rest of the article, it is actually written pretty well. The main focus (at this point) should be citing more sources. Best reguards!Texas141 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article makes for enjoyable reading about an interesting place, and it is well-illustrated. It certainly has potential for Good Article status and beyond that FA eventually. It seems neutral, stable, and broad in coverage. It isn't comprehensive, which is a requirement for FA but not GA. It is generally well-written but still has some minor prose and style problems here and there. Its sourcing, as you suggest, is incomplete. Here are some suggestions for improvement (with FA potential in mind).

MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything in the lead that is undeveloped in the main text. The existing lead doesn't mention climate, education, transportation, demographics, or government. I'd suggest re-writing the lead as a true summary once you're done with any other substantial changes. Even though it comes first in the article, it's hard to finish until the rest of the article is finished.
The images and maps lack alt text. This probably won't be a barrier to GA, but it will for FA. You'll find an explanation of how to write alt text and where to put it at WP:ALT, and you can also observe discussions at FAC to see how other editors are handling alt text issues.
You asked about sourcing. A good rule of thumb is to provide a reliable source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quote. Quite a few paragraphs in the article are unsourced as are many claims that include statistics or other information that is not common knowledge.
I can imagine quite a few possibilities for expansion of the article should you want to aim for FA. Areas that you might cover include geology, parks and recreation, more details about the economy, culture such as arts, media, entertainment, churches, concerts, festivals, libraries, and museums, and infrastructure such as streets, water sources and treatment, landfills, recycling, and sewage treatment.
I'd suggest mentioning in the first sentence of the lead and in the geography section that Avalon is in the United States.
"Today Avalon remains a resort community... " - Words like "today", "now", and "currently" are indefinite. Usually it's better to use something more specific such as "as of 2009" or "in the 21st century" or "since then" (referring to the Wrigley era), or even "in the modern era". You might look through the article to find any of these that can reasonably be made more specific.
"From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, several different developers tried to develop Avalon into a resort destination community, with most going bankrupt." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and I see several similar sentences in the article. They can usually be recast and made stronger. Suggestion for this one: "From the late 1800s to the early 1900s, several different developers tried to develop Avalon into a resort destination community, but most went bankrupt."
Ship names like S.S. Avalon by convention take italics.
Date ranges like 1921–1951 take en dashes rather than hyphens. Ditto for page ranges in the citations.
I'd suggest moving the autoettes image to the right so that the autoettes run into the page rather than away from it. The reader's eye will follow the direction of motion.
The dabfinder tool that lives here finds a wikilink that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
The url in Citation 10 does not seem to work. You might have to convert this one to a reference to the printed version or find another solution. Or maybe the problem is transient.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article in an area of your choice. Finetooth (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth, I went ahead and added missing reference tags throughout the article except in the lead, which I will completely overhaul once I'm finished with everything else. I would appreciate it if you or anyone else would look through the article to tag anything else that needs to be cited. Either way, thanks for the helpful comments.--mcd51 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]