Wikipedia:Peer review/Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2006/archive1
It seemed like this Senate election page was fixed up by a lot of people and I thought that it might make a good example for current and future Senate pages. I just cleaned up the references, and I'm sure that more can be done, so I figured I should open the page up for review. Bridger 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Response: I believe that all the automated suggestions have been met except for the last one, but I have tagged the article as in need of copyediting to make sure that the last suggestion will be taken care of as well. I'm still working on trying to reformat the polling data into one table. Thanks for the comments. Bridger 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good so far, well referenced. If you want this to be a Good or Featured article, I would spell out some abbreviations (PA-18 for example, use the full title of the wikilinked article). I would also convert all embedded links to external sites into inline citation references (the poll results especially). Finally, there are three sections that are almost all tables or lists and need some explanatory text to make things flow better and be less choppy. The sections are Election results (perhaps explain the swing and +/- as not everyone knows what these are), Candidates (perhaps make the chronology clearer - not clear in this section who was in the primary and who in the general election) and Opinion polling (explain who each pollster / institute is, talk about trends, perhaps move some other text here). I hope this is helpful, keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Response: I believe that all the automated suggestions have been met except for the last one, but I have tagged the article as in need of copyediting to make sure that the last suggestion will be taken care of as well. I'm still working on trying to reformat the polling data into one table. Thanks for the comments. Bridger 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just at a glance: about 70% of the article is tables. I don't know if that is encyclopedic but I would guess not. Mostly lists and tables should probably be converted to prose. I think they would be especially harsh on that over at GAC or FAC. I can do a more thorough edit on this if you would like though, let me know.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)