Wikipedia:Peer review/Boston, Lincolnshire/archive1

Boston, Lincolnshire

This article has seen some nice expansion over the last few months but could use cleanup, hopefully a few fresh eyes can make the difference. Zerbey 30 June 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Small issue. I really don't like the external link being used on the first word of the article. Surely there's a better place for this (ie. the external links section). Thanks. Harro5 July 3, 2005 09:48 (UTC)

I didn't know about featured articles but I have had a random dip into the list and find that those I looked at; Bath, Charles II of England and Trench warfare were of a higher standard than Boston, Lincolnshire is.

Uniformity is not everything but I think the Boston page should be looked at with a view to presenting the day to day factual material in a way similar to that of other town articles unless there is some reason not to. It needs something on provision in fields such as education, health, business, transport etc.

I am not convinced of the merits of presenting the list of attractions as a bald list as the Bath page does but some policy thought is perhaps needed here as the Boston page is semi-narrative in this section. That part too is as yet incomplete.

One obvious omission, as it stands, is a references section. However, there are other omissions and shortages. It is nearly all history in one way or another. The footnote links in the Bath page are worth considering as a way of tying the references into the statements in the text.

I think it best to wait and see whether someone can come up with something in these areas. (RJP 6 July 2005 13:01 (UTC))

Its Ok. However if your goal is to post it for FA status, there's a lot of other content that can be added. Why don't you look at city articles that have gained Featured status? =Nichalp «Talk»= July 8, 2005 09:12 (UTC)

I notice that at one point the article cites as its source for the transfer of property between 2 medieval lords to "(DB Lincs 12 - 67)". Is this a citation to the Domesday Book? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to spell that out? I also noticed some in-text external links to various local landmarks (e.g., Skirbeck & Sibsey); shouldn't these be to Wikipedia articles instead? -- llywrch 8 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

The reminder to put the DB footnote in should not have been overlooked: Sorry.

The Sibsey etc. links call up illustrative maps. A link to an article even if the article existed, would not serve the present purpose. That is not to say that articles on the various places should not be written. Rather, They would not make the point in this instance. (RJP 8 July 2005 22:17 (UTC))