Wikipedia:Peer review/Lincoln Town Car/archive1

Lincoln Town Car

This article has shaped up very nicely, and I would like some ideas on how this article can be improved, and maybe some day it could become a featured article! --Karrmann

The layout is rather confusing. I think that all of the first several sections should be subsections underneath the History section. In addition, please provide WP:FOOTNOTEs where appropriate. Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered good practice these days to provide 'low grade' links - and (especially) the practice of linking every year number is no longer acceptable. I agree with AndyZ's comments about organisation. We have the year numbers marching down the article with section headings about vehicle models intruding occasionally - I'm not sure what I'd do to change that - but I don't like it the way it is. This fragmentary appearance is made worse by the profusion of small tables (in one case with just one actual entry!). These would be less intrusive to the flow of the article if they were combined together into a single table at the bottom of the main body of text (before the References perhaps). Aside from that, I think this is a great article. Well done! SteveBaker 14:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great input. I have given your suggestions considerable thought and have been able to make what I consider to be significant improvments to the article. Thank you and please let me know any more suggestion you might have towards improving this article. Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the remainder of the year links for you. Two further things: Firstly, you should convert your references to the inlined <ref> format and use the {cite...} format so you get all the information about the books/websites/whatever nicely organised for you. Then you can tag your text with your references so people can easily see which reference backs up which facts. Secondly, the article is rather light on links throughout. This is more evident now that the year links are gone. SteveBaker 04:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]