Wikipedia:Peer review/Shin-Yakushi-ji/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on what needs to be done to get this article up to B-class or more. Thanks, bamse (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by H1nkles
I'll do a review of the article and give you some ideas for improvement.
- Make sure the lead covers summarizes the entire article per WP:LEAD.
- All measurements should be converted into imperial measurements. You can use the {{convert}} template. It should look like this: 2 kilometres (2,000 m).
- Short one or two-sentence paragraphs should be expanded or combined in other paragraphs.
- Linking to terms should be done once during the article. I see Twelve Heavenly Generals linked at least four times. See WP:OVERLINK for thoughts on this and WP:LINK for general ideas about linking.
- You need to bolster the referencing. There are quite a few unreferenced statements in the article. As a rule of thumb any statement of fact should be supported by a credible reference. See WP:VERIFY for thoughts on referencing.
- Can you translate the titles of refs 4 & 7? This is an English Wikipedia and you shouldn't assume the readers can read Japanese.
- Trivia sections are frowned upon in Wikipedia. See WP:TRIVIA for thoughts on this and what to do with a trivia section.
- I'm not sure what else should be added to the content as I'm not an expert in Japanese architecture but you can look at other Good Articles and Featured Articles that relate to this topic for ideas on additional content. This will help address question of comprehensiveness.
- Why is the image of Haira not a National Treasure?
- Why did you italicize National Treasure? Also not sure National Treasure is a proper noun, it probably does not need to be capitalized.
- I think you're off to a good start, I would work on cutting down on the small paragraphs, try to condense them into longer ones. You need to beef up the sourcing to make the article more credible. I'd give this article some work and then take it to WP:GAC to see if it will pass as a Good Article. That's the next logical step after you've given it some work. Best of luck. If you have specific questions please ping me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the useful comments. I'll work on it. bamse (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)