Wikipedia:Peer review/Shepperton/archive1

Shepperton

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems to meet the Good article criteria. If any areas of WP:UKTOWNS are missing which are of broad interest, or other additions then please state these.

Thanks, Adam37 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lemonade51 – Many thanks for your work on this article. I do think at present it is some way off meeting the GA criteria, as there are certain issues with style and how the article is referenced.

For a start, look at other town articles which are of GA or FA standard. Compare the style and structure, look at its reviewing process and take some ideas on board. Giffnock and Uxbridge are two which have went through a good article review and passed in 2013.
The lead is very light. It should act summary for the entire article, but in this case it just describes where Shepperton is located and what its nearest towns are. In short, summarise the article contents.
The section 'Arts and Film' could be renamed as 'Culture'; instead of bolding 'Film' and 'Other arts' as mini sections use Level 3 headering. The 'other arts' section is all unreferenced and needs to be addressed.
"Sport and Recreation" lowercase on recreation
"The 2001 and 2011 Censuses give detailed information...", censuses should be lowercase
While it is fine to have a 'Notable people' section, it is unreferenced so it fails point 2 of the GA criteria. A good article wouldn't necessarily bullet point names either, but write them out in fuller sentences.
References need retrieval dates, a publish date and author if given amongst other things. Be sure to read WP:CITE to get an idea of how to cite correctly.
This could be more comprehensive. Places of worship are stated for instance, but it would be nice for the reader to know a bit more background about the churches.
There is one dablink and a few deadlinks.

Having scanned the article, what I can say is it needs to be more broad. In several sections, it's very underdeveloped; the danger of that is it may leave the reader wanting to know a bit more. I would advise you to focus on expanding the article (top to bottom) before nominating. Ensure all statements are cited correctly, with sources that are reliable. Perhaps get another peer review before sending this over to GAN. Should you wish for me to clarify any points made above, feel free to send a message on my talkpage, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Adam37 - all of these points have been actioned. My only admission is that I have not researched how previous reviews were performed. Many thanks for all of these problems identified. Adam37 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]