Wikipedia:Peer review/Camberwell Cemeteries/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the work that has recently taken place has moved it from Start status and I would like a peer review to give pointers how it can eventually be moved towards GA status.
Thanks, Nshimbi (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments This article has potential but is not nearly ready for GAN. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.
- I would mention England in the first sentence.
- The lead should be a brief summary of the whole article and should not include anything important that does not appear in the main text sections. WP:LEAD has more information about writing the lead.
- The article is too list-y. The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose rather than lists when feasible. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.
- Careful copyediting is always good for articles. The first sentence of the lead is a run-on. You need a full stop between "South London" and "both". Either a terminal period or a semicolon would be OK. About five lines from the end of the article, a line reads "and is notable for it's beautiful stained glass window". The "it's" should be "its". After you finish making changes and additions to the article, you might look for a copyeditor at WP:GOCE.
- Extremely short paragraphs and extremely short sentences make an article choppy. I'd be inclined to expand shorties like "In July 1944 a V1 flying bomb landed in the cemetery. The blast caused damage to surrounding properties."
- It's not desirable to include bylines like "- geograph.org.uk-839996" in the captions. This kind of information belongs on the image license page.
- The Camberwell Cemetery Board controlled the old cemetery. The passive-voice sentences in the Camberwell New Cemetery section don't reveal who controls the new cemetery. I would suggest including that bit of information and converting some of the sentences to active voice.
- I would not link common things like "20th century" or "meadow" that are already familiar to readers of English.
- All of the citations are incomplete. Citations to web sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and access date if all of those are known or can be found. I like to use Cite family of citation templates to help me organize my ref sections. WP:CIT has details. You don't have to use templates, but just looking at them will remind you of what to include and how to arrange it. If you use templates, don't mix the "Citation" family with the "Cite" family; pick one and stick with it. You can look at articles that are already GA or FA to see how other editors have handled the citations.
- Citation 17 has dead URL.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)