Wikipedia:Peer review/Marysville, Washington/archive1

Marysville, Washington

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it would be a good GA nominee after some improvements. I would like to know what kinds of improvements are needed to make this a GA.

Thanks! — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement to potential GA level:

A model article is always useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc. Seattle, Washington is a FA and Hillsboro, Oregon is a GA that may be useful as models.
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Example the "Strawberry City".
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead needs to be expanded to perhaps three paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
Biggest problem as I see it with this article right now is a lack of references. For example the whole first history section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
Avoid external links right in the article (like Summer Jubilee). Add these as a reference instead.
Next biggest problem is comprehensiveness - for example, look at History, did nothing happen from 1891 to 2008?
The 2008 makeover section reads like a brochure and has way too much detail. This is worth a sentence or two, not its own section. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM
Avoid short paragraphs (one or sentences) and short sections, as they break up the flow of the article. Combine these with others or expand them.
Article has all sorts of typos and odd formatting and needs a copyedit for prose. The senior centre served formerly as a city hall, police station, jail, fire station, and library before becoming a senior center in 1997.
Try to avoid needless repetition - senior center is repeted three times in two sentences.
Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
Watch out for peacock language like "utopian" - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.