Wikipedia:Peer review/Birmingham/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article could, at this point, be nominated for featured article status. This article has been a good article for a very long time. I see no reason why it shouldn't be featured but would like some other opinions.
Thanks, IWI (chat) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- @ImprovedWikiImprovment: The first thing I notice that will have to be resolved to pass FA is that beginning with the "Government" section, many of the paragraphs end without a citation, whereas in order to satisfy FAC 1c, every statement must be backed by proper citations. I haven't probed it too deeply, but seeing as this article is pretty thoroughly sourced, I suspect most of the statements are supported by the citations at the end of the last paragraph in the section. Therefore, most of the work would be duplicating those sources where appropriate.
- You may also want to consider rephrasing the lede sentence. The dependent clause "the second most populous" does not seem to grammatically correctly fit into the sentence (a period or semicolon would resolve this). Also, the dialect section should not be just one short sentence. It should either be expanded to a reasonable length by incorporating part of the article to which it links or folded into another section and/or the lede. Besides this, the article seems to be in quite good shape.
- Hope these comments help. Let me know if you're looking for a review of a more specific matter. I would also appreciate it if you could take a look at the open William Matthews review. Ergo Sum 00:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)