Wikipedia:Peer review/Tijuana/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to prepare it for GA review. It is lacking something but I am not sure what per say. No doubt it needs more citations and having editors mark the text with {{cn}} tags would be useful and give other editors, myself included, a purpose that would increase the validity of the prose. The education section of the article is currently marked as needing expansion but is the warranted? What kind of information could be added to it if it does need to be expanded. Another section of the article to look at is the history section; how could it better be organized? Overall, how could this article be better improved and made fit for good article status.
Thanks, 08OceanBeachS.D. 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this article about an interesting and important city. I have several suggestions, although this is nothing like a complete review. In dealing with the article's major sourcing problems, you will probably have to make many alterations. A line-by-line review of the prose, the layout, and the reference formatting would therefore be premature at this point. The prose looks pretty good, but most of the article's claims are unsupported.
- My feeling about "citation needed" tags is that they are only useful in pointing out one or two specific claims that lack support from reliable sources. The problem in this article, as indicated by the big tag at the top of the page, is that many claims lack sources. My rule of thumb for sourcing is to support every paragraph, generally excepting the lead, with an inline citation to a reliable source. If an entire paragraph is supported by a single source, the inline citation should appear at the end of the last sentence in the paragraph. In addition to providing a source for each paragraph, I would also provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is unusual or apt to be questioned. It would be fair to say that most of this article lacks sources and therefore does not meet WP:V. I would suggest working to fix this sourcing problem before worrying too much about other problems; the article can't become GA until it is properly supported. If no support can be found for some of the claims, delete the claims.
- I would not worry about expanding the "Education" section at this point. It lacks sources. As you examine source documents, you will naturally come upon information that strikes you as important. If you add those important things, whatever they turn out to be, the section will probably expand a bit in a natural way. What I would not even consider would be expanding by making the lists longer. Don't list all the elementary schools, for example. An outsider might like to know a bit more about the biggest university or perhaps about a school that is special in some other way (highest ranked, known for its teacher training, known for its medical school, or something like that). They might also like some statistics; e.g., number of elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities, students of one sort or another.
- In the "Crime" section this sentence appears: "The main reason for the upsurge of violence is due to president Felipe Calderón cracking down on drug cartels." - This is a good example of an unsourced claim that's sure to be questioned. Would Calderón agree?
- It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar topics. WP:FA#Geography and places includes quite a few links to FA articles about cities.
- Here's another problem sentence, in the "Culture and contemporary life" section: "While still an entertaining town with an enjoyable atmosphere, locals and tourists alike would agree that it has lost its "anything goes" mentality which it had once acquired, a mindset that was dangerous to tourists, locals, and the tourism industry as a whole." This not only lacks a source, it reads suspiciously like something the Chamber of Commerce or a tourist bureau might have said. It expresses a particular point of view. Please make sure that the claims in the article meet the WP:NPOV guidelines.
- Here's another problematic passage: "Graffiti in Tijuana may seem at first to consist largely of simplistic tags and thus not as technically evolved, colorful, or accepted in the mainstream as the "pieces" of graffiti scenes of the United States, Europe, or Japan, but large, colorful graffiti murals adorn walls from both native Tijuanan artists as well as visiting graffiti writers, especially from California. The Tijuanan art pieces show as much prowess and skill as those made by their more renowned U.S. counterparts, although illicit graffiti is strongly discouraged by the Tijuana government, as in other major metropolitan areas." - This set of claims makes an argument rather stating supportable facts. To whom does the Tijuana graffiti seem simplistic at first? Who thinks it is not "technically evolved"? Who says Tijuana art is inferior to U.S. art? Be careful not to use the article to present a case for or against aspects of Tijuana. It is sometimes OK to quote others who are making a case, but if you do that, you should try to include counterclaims as well if the controversy is notable enough to mention at all.
- The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find four links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets, and at least two dead URLs in the citations.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)