Wikipedia:Peer review/Leeds/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some idea of where the article has excessive detail or what is missing. I fear the article is too bloated and a separate City of Leeds article should be created, so I would like some input on that or some indication of how the article should cover both things.
Thanks, MRSC (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just a comment on the lead which is in serious need of revision. The lead is supposed to summarise all of the article and to only contain information which is in the rest of the article. Currently it concentrates, over selectively, on areas such as population, some of which is probably not relevant with a split article. The lead should also not have many references as these should appear in the article where the information is extracted from in the first place. Keith D (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by David Fuchs
- Looks like the automatic tools could be of some use here. See above
- In terms of overall structure; we really shouldn't be suppressing the table of contents. If it's overwhelming, it's something we should address via editing, not syntax tweaks. For instance, considering there's a History of Leeds article, the History section could be trimmed and the subheads largely removed.
- Also, when you've got Main articles, really all you need to do in the parent article is summarize it. Consider it essentially a nested lead. So since there's a Transport in Leeds article, I would simply collapse all those subheads and cover all the major points in say two paragraphs, maybe three at most.
- The "Music and theatre" section is entirely unreferenced, which is part of the reason why I think it seems to skew to mentioning laundry lists of artists. That's not really helpful.
- Generally I would think that "Governance" sections should come after things like demographics and geography (the "natural" city aspects, as it were).
- Second MRSC's comments about the lead.
- Suggestion: Axe the "Notable people" section entirely. It's nowhere near as important as any other section in the article.
- The citation scheme is hard to figure out--what seperates notes from refs? Not all the citations in bibliography are used in the article, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)