Wikipedia:Peer review/Mackem/archive1

Mackem

Ok then, when I started the work on the article it was in a hideous state with no references and quite a messy context. I have managed to add seven references and clean up the article to a better state and I was planning to take this article on to Good article status however I don't think it is quite ready yet so I would like this article peer reviewed so I can fix any problems which may hold the article back.

Thanks, The sunder king 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattythewhite

Some comments:

The information from the sentence starting "The term possibly stems from either ship building.." is only included in the led and not in the rest of the article. The information should be removed or moved into the main portion of the article. See WP:LEAD.
Sentence starting "Often people from.." doesn't finish with a full stop.

Still no full stop.

The "Theories of origin" section could do with more references. For example, the paragraph starting "The term could equally be a reference.." doesn't give a single reference.
The "Famous Mackems" section is very subjective, POV etc. Needs a criteria or should be removed.

Still opinionated and subjective.

The references should give more info, e.g. title, date, accessdate etc.

One more reference needs more parameters adding.

Hope this helps. Mattythewhite 17:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Completed mostly everything that's mentioned above. The sunder king 18:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what relevance does the bridge have? Mattythewhite 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the bridge is basically a part of Mackem life. It's sunderland and I thought adding a picture would brighten up the article so it didn't look boring. The sunder king 18:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a general cleanup of the theories section for grammar and weasel words. I didn't see anything requiring cleanup in the rest of the article, but I may have missed some, of course. The article could use some more references, but otherwise it looks good. I will now take a look at the list of Mackems to address the POV concern. Peace, The Hyb rid 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the list of notable Mackems looks fine to me. If we could perhaps be provided with some more specific information about why exactly it is opinionated and subjective, then we would be more successful in addressing the problem that you see. Cheers, The Hyb rid 23:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]