Wikipedia:Peer review/Indianapolis/archive2

Indianapolis

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review to receive feedback on areas of the article that may require more attention in order to bring it to Featured Article standards. Sections that may require more scrutiny than others include History and Economy. The latter section could probably be shortened and a new article started to accommodate the depth of the current information.

Thanks, Momoneymoproblemz (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to list your request at Template:FAC peer review sidebar if FA is your goal. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from Template:FAC peer review sidebar. If FA regulars have to do all the maintenance, they may stop following that very useful sidebar :) Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Momoneymoproblemz would you like to close this PR now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

My general advice to FA aspirants is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content#Advice for FA aspirants. Geography articles are among the most difficult to write and maintain to FA standard, because "as of" dates are needed on a lot of content, and content needs to be maintained up to date over time. Because of that, I always recommend very tight use of summary style on geography articles (as I mentioned in my essay). Because this article has over 11,000 words of prose, it would never garner a support from me at FAC. And it would have a hard time attracting reviewers. And it will become a candidate for FAR as soon as the main editor stops editing (happens every time :) Other FAC reviewers disagree with me on WP:SIZE. But I would create sub-articles for Culture of Indianaplis, and for all of those sections that already have sub-articles, I would much more tightly summarize those sections, and move some content out. Bare bones is more likely to be read, to be reviewed, and to need less updating over time. Just my personal preference, and it would not be accepted as an Oppose at FAC, but neither would an article like this gain my support.

Also, be sure to spend time going through everything at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing.

Next to specifics ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are SAMPLES only-- items mentioned should be addressed throughout.

MOS:SANDWICH everywhere ... a perennial problem with Geography articles is cramming too many images in there. Seeing a picture of an orangutan at a zoo does not aid my understanding of the topic. Almost half of the images should be removed.
MOS:CAPTIONS, no final punctuation on sentence fragments, only full sentences.
Racial distribution image depends on color, see MOS:COLOR
You can install this script, and should learn the different uses of WP:HYPHENs, WP:ENDASHes and WP:EMDASHes.
Scroll to the bottom of the article and look at all the error categories there, including some already dates "as of" statements-- make sure there is no more current info on any of those. You will also see numerous error cats there which disqualify this article right away for FA status.
The Further reading section often grows because editors are trying to publicize their books. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, so there are rare exceptions to when a book should not have already been used as a source. Further reading should contain only items that can't or haven't been used as sources already for some reason, but will still enhance the reader's understanding. Same for EL. Same for See also ... why are these not worked in to content ? Eleven Park – Proposed soccer stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana and Indianapolis Catacombs
You can also install this script.
IMDb is not a reliable source for just about anything; see WP:RSP.
Don't repeat author when publisher is same: Bureau, U.S. Census. "U.S. Census website". U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved June 15, 2018.
Who is this author, and not in same format as other authors (citation consistency): D, Nick (March 7, 2013). "Bob & T ...
MOS:ALLCAPS, reduce to sentence case ... "WMO Climate Normals for INDIANAPOLIS/INT'L ARPT IN 1961–1990". National ... And that citation leads to a notepad, unlikely to be reliable. Whose notepad is it and where did it come from?
This sort of thing should be in a footnote: The U.S. Census for 2010 reports the female population for Indianapolis as 424,099 (323,845 were age 18 and over) and the male population as 396,346 (291,745 were age 18 and over). See "Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010 Demographic Profile Data for Indianapolis city (balance), Indiana". U.S. Census Bureau. Archived from the original on May 21, 2019. Retrieved November 20, 2013.

Next, to look at a few random prose sample:

Utilities section

Here we can see where some excess size comes from. We don't need to look at IPL's portfolio-- it has its own article. Nor do we need to know what they did in 2016; again, has its own article.
Today, IPL generates ... and followed by data from 2016. Avoid using "today" (see MOS:CURRENT). That would be "as of 2016". But why do we care-- IPL has its own article. Too much detail for a broad geographic overview.
In 2017, Indianapolis had ... multiple issues ... first, it is cited to them, so not likely notable enough to be included here ... belongs at their article. Second, 2017 ... we don't care, probably dated by now.
the only public charitable trust formed to operate utilities in the U.S., ... same stuff. Cited to dated sources so we don't know if it's still true, and even if still true, does not belong in broad overview article-- should have their own article.
Reintroduced in 2019, the city's street sweeping program is managed by the Department of Public Works Operations Division.[371] This sort of text is simply not needed in an encyclopedic article. And if it were needed, then where do we stop in terms of what the city manages? Parks, roads, animal control ... etc ???

Those are just ideas from one section ... another

Economy

In 2015, the Indianapolis metropolitan area had a gross domestic product ... five years ago? And if included, leave out specifics that will require yearly updating.
Compared to Indiana as a whole, the Indianapolis metropolitan area ... cited to 2010. Dated.
Leave off the Fortune 500 rankings, they are too much detail and will require yearly updating.
Other companies based in the Indianapolis metropolitan area include: ... seriously? Where do we stop with this? Excess detail.
recent deindustrialization trends MOS:CURRENT ... that entire paragraph could be rewritten to avoid specific dates and specific numbers, which become quickly dated.

I hope this gives you ideas to work on. My suggestion is that, after you have completed a rewrite along these lines, you next approach GA, and after that submit ANOTHER peer review before approaching FAC, and also be sure to line up a mentor. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]