Wikipedia:Peer review/Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando)/archive1

Halloween Horror Nights (Orlando)

I'm looking for constructive criticism in order to prepare for a possible FA status. I know there is a lot to be done, but I want to get a base line of what needs to be done. Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 23:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention that I already know about the articles reliance on HHNVault for references. I'm trying to remedy that, but the sites that could be referenced to are either blatant advertising or they don't come up to snub for WP:Verifiability. Suggestions on that topic will be helpful.--Farquaadhnchmn_(Dungeon) 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a peer reviewer, but I have a few suggestions:
- It's kind of crufty, see WP:CRUFT. Specifically, a long list detailing overly specific information on every year the event took place isn't really necessary; I suggest shortening them some and creating sub-articles covering certain headers and providing some sections summarizing the list.
- The opening section should be at least one paragraph long; for an article as long as this, 2-3 paragraphs. Provide an overview of what the article will be describing, a summary.
- It's more of a list than an article; under many headings, there is a brief description then a list of something. Try mentioning a few parts of the list in the main part of the section, and at least a few of the lists.
- The article is a bit long; most FAs are 32 kilobytes or shorter, this one is 38. While this isn't a very big deal for now, you could gradually shorten it over time, to maybe 35 KB.
Overall, you a very good job on this; while it could definitely use a lot of improvement, it's off to a pretty good start. Instead of promoting it to featured status, I suggest focusing on making it a GA for now, and once it gets there, you'll be a long way through, and though it will still need a lot of work, I'm sure you could promote this eventually. —The Gr e at Llama^moo? 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]