Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgetown, Texas/archive1

Georgetown, Texas

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 it has an advert tag placed on it which I don't think is justified. Or if it is, it would be helpful to know what specifically needs editing. Also anxious to begin to move this article up from from a "start" sttaus.

Thanks, Austex • Talk 01:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: In response to your question about the "advert" tag, that's not the problem. The main problems at the moment are copyright violations, inaccurate sourcing, and lack of sourcing. I've read the discussions on the article's talk page, and I see that you've inherited many, perhaps all, of these problems. Still, they need to be fixed. Here are some specifics:

Here's a copyright violation. "Historic neighborhoods" begins this way: "In the 1970s, Georgetown's downtown was bleak and featureless. In an effort to modernize and compete with suburban retail development, building owners in the ‘50s and ‘60s obscured one of their most priceless resources – their retail buildings. The Texas-Victorian streetscape was plastered with stucco, aluminum covers, brick, and multiple layers of white paint. But community leaders had already begun taking interest and putting new stock back into their architectural heritage." And here's what the source says, "In the 1970s, Georgetown's downtown was bleak and featureless. In an effort to modernize and compete with suburban retail development, building owners in the ‘50s and ‘60s obscured one of their most priceless resources – their retail buildings. The Texas-Victorian streetscape was plastered with stucco, aluminum covers, brick, and multiple layers of white paint. But community leaders had already begun taking interest and putting new stock back into their architectural heritage." As you can see, they are identical. Whoever copied the source material simply stole it from The National Trust for Historic Preservation. Before doing anything else with the article, please remove this copyvio and all others that you can identify in the article. That means checking the existing text against the sources. WP:COPYVIO has details.

Here's an example of a source that does not support the claim it's attached to. The claim is: "There also appear to have been small numbers of Kiowa, Yojuane, Tawakoni, and Mayeye Indians living in the county at the time of the earliest Anglo settlements." The source, citation 12, says nothing about Indians. You need to check all of the sources to make sure they they support the claims they purport to support. "That" they support, not "they they"

Many parts of the article lack sourcing and are therefore in violation of WP:V. For example, the "Weather" section is completely unsourced as is "Government and politics". My rule of thumb is to include at least one source for every paragraph except, usually, the paragraphs of the lead. Also, every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation needs a source. If one source supports an entire paragraph, it should go at the end of the paragraph, right after the terminal period of the last sentence.

Until the sourcing problems are fixed, there's little point in reviewing the article for other problems. I'd be glad to take a further look later if you clean up these serious problems.

Two other thoughts: WP:USCITY has helpful guidelines for articles about cities. WP:FA#Geography and places includes the names of featured articles about cities, and these can be useful models.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]