Wikipedia:Peer review/Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this A-Class article for WP:CAL in preparation for FA.
Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- The references are re-used several times; instead of adding a new instance of the template each time, you should just use the ref name parameters, (See this diff and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners#Same ref used twice or more).
- The citations all use unformatted dates, which people are back and forth on using, but you may want to format your dates using YYYY-MM-DD format in the accessdate field to pick up formatting. Either use the access date field and remove the month and year parameter or use the month and year and remove the date parameter.
- The citations all specify English, that isn't necessary, this is the English wikipedia, you only need to specify for sources in languages other than english or translations.
- Take a look at WP:CITE for the general style recommendations on , WP:CITET, and Magnus' make ref tool.
- The controversies section only consists of one controversy, if that is the only controversy related to the dunes then just rename the section to something along the lines of Off-road vehicle controversy or something to that effect.
- The two images being used are tagged as public domain. They should have an {{Information}} tag added and the images should be moved to commons so other projects can use them.
- Bullet points of the attractions section aren't necessary, just seperate the sections as paragraphs (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Bulleted and numbered lists).
That's about all I have right now after takinga quick look through it, let me know if you need more. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)