Wikipedia:Peer review/Denton, Texas/archive1

Denton, Texas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see what improvements I can make to the article. I'd like to get it to GA status and then possibly FA if it's feasible. Also, I know it needs a good editor to go through and improve the prose. My English writing skills are somewhat lacking with English being my second language. Thank you. Mahanga^Talk 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mahanga^Talk 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Review (Mcorazao)

Pretty nicely written overall. Here is my feedback.

Things I would recommend that you change

These are things that IMHO you should definitely change.

• General

• The inline citations need to be specific. For example, the article cites the Annual Program of Services directory. Instead it should cite a specific report with a specific page number.

Ok, I knew that.

• The article makes substantial use of primary sources (i.e. information published by the topic being discussed). For example, when talking about Denton Regional Medical Center the article cites the medical center web site. When talking about geographic locations it is unavoidable that primary sources are going to have to be used but the article should try to look for secondary or tertiary sources as much as possible (I think there are a lot more secondary sources that could be found).

Attempted to add a few more secondary sources. It was a bit harder than I thought.

• There are no "hard" sources cited. Generally a mark of a good article is a list of books listed at the bottom (usually the section is named "Further Reading"). This is not to say that web or news sources are not ok but, in general, if web and news sources are your only sources it makes the whole article a little dubious.

Made use of a public domain book in the history section. Included in the References section and Further Reading.

• Some additional inline citations are necessary. I'll tag.

I removed some of those sentences since they were not included by me and I could not find a concrete source for them.

• Most of the images lack alt text, which allows readers who can't see the images to learn what information they contain. You can find details about how to write alt text and where to put them at WP:ALT.

I'll get on this, although I know I'm not going to enjoy it. It seems so simple, yet so difficult.

• Intro

• The introduction mentions the results of two separate census counts. I realize that the point was to illustrate how much the city is growing but those details are best left to the demographics section. Keep statistics to a minimum.

• History

• The early history is a little disjointed. Maybe a little rephrasing that tells a little more of a story would be good (who was Otis Welch and, apart from the fact that people wanted a county seat there, what was his motivation for wanting to be involved in establishing a town?).

Still working on this.

• "killed in an Native-American battle" - Not sure what that means. A battle of Texans against Native Americans? A battle between native tribes he got in the middle of?

Reworded

• Economy

• The section doesn't really give a clear picture of what type of economy it has and what the dominant industries are. If you look at Houston#Economy, for example, it talks about key industries and economic sectors and how they make up the economy. It only incidentally mentions specific corporations. Granted since Denton is smaller mentioning specific companies makes more sense but still only in the context of discussing the economic sectors.

Fixed.

• The section spends a substantial amount discussing the the city government's cash flow. But the government is not the dominant player in the economy so going into all of this detail on the city's finances doesn't seem appropriate.

Removed and reworded.

• The relevance of the statement on the Golden Triangle Mall is unclear. What does it matter that it is the largest mall? Does this mall actually represent one of the town's major economic hubs (is there a source)?

Good point. Clarified.

• Culture and recreation

• A little strange to start out the "Festivals and Activities" section talking about a discontinued annual event. If this is mentioned at all it should probably be moved to the end.

Moved.

• Education

• The library info is too detailed. Honestly I would debate if the library info needs to be there at all. If you're going to keep it I would reduce it to one or two sentences.

I noticed another FA city have a library subsection, so I thought I'd include it.

• Notable natives and residents

• Be careful about going too far to claim people are "from" Denton. I don't think Dr. Phil or Norah Jones really lived a long time in Denton. These kinds of sections can be tricky. If you can't establish that they lived in the city a very long time (say a decade or two) or that they at least consider themselves natives of the city then claiming they are "from" Denton has to be considered Original Research.

I've reworded it a little to de-emphasize Norah Jones is from Denton, but attended UNT. Remove Dr. Phil. All other people are natives or based in Denton, which I think deserves mention.

Things to think about

These are things that, if it were me, I would change but others may disagree.

• Mentioning in the intro the founding and incorporation dates, who the town was named after, what people from Denton are called, and such seems like trivial info to include at the beginning. I would focus on summarizing the universities, the music scene, any other key economic sectors, state/national rankings, and anything interesting or important about the history.

Tweaked it a bit. I've looked at some other articles and incorporation dates are all included. I'd rather not remove too much from the lead because it's barely long enough as it is.

• Separating out the history of Fry Street from the rest of the history doesn't really seem right to me. I would say Fry Street's history should be merged into the main history.

I agree. I'm not sure what to do with it since it includes: information regarding the historic area, the more recent fair, and very recent news regarding its development. Still working on this.

• Ideally the Geography section should at least mention the natural geography (terrain, folliage, etc.).

Ok.

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy review. It helps a lot. I'll get working on those issues. Mahanga^Talk 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. It's very much appreciated! Mahanga^Talk 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)