Wikipedia:Peer review/San Diego/archive1

San Diego

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article may be reached to FA. However, I want list this for peer review first since San Diego got promoted to GA back in June, since I started the San Diego WikiProject back in October myself to cover all San Diego related articles. Any comments are welcome here.

If you have any concerns, please contact me at my talk page. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: COngratulations on GA! After a quick read through I think this needs a fair amount of work before it would stand a chance at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement with FAC in mind and thanks for your work on this and other San Diego related articles.

A model article is useful for idea and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs on cities - please see Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles for these, several of which seem like they would be good examples.
There is a toolbox on this PR page which has some useful things to check. It shows that there are several dab links and circular redirects here that will need to be fixed before FAC
Also finds several dead external links that need to be fixed before FAC here
Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references in places and a lack of full information for some of the sources used as refs. These would both be major issues at FAC.
There are many places without refs that need them, I will give a few examples. In the Geography section, the last three sentences of the first paragraph and the whole second paragraph do not have refs and need them. Big chunks of the sections on Climate, the 2008 subsection in Demographics, Colleges and univerisites, Culture, Sports, Media, Government, and Utilities are missing refs as well. This would be enouigh for a quick fail at FAC.
Even paragraphs that appear to have refs may well need more - for example in this paragraph there is ref [116] towards the end which seems like it shouldcover all the preceding sentences :The San Diego Surf of the American Basketball Association is located in the city. The annual Farmers Insurance Open golf tournament (formerly the Buick Invitational) on the PGA Tour occurs at the municipally owned Torrey Pines Golf Course. This course was also the site of the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship. The San Diego Yacht Club hosted the America's Cup yacht races three times during the period 1988 to 1995. The amateur beach sport Over-the-line was invented in San Diego,[116] ... However checking ref 116 it is only for over-the-line.
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and at least every paragraph needs a ref.
Refs used do not always have required information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. For example the first ref is just called "U.S. Census" and needs the page title, date, access date, etc.
Or current refs 122 and 123 are both identical (^ "San Diego City website". Sandiego.gov. http://www.sandiego.gov/mayortransition/index.shtml. Retrieved July 1, 2010. ^ "San Diego City website". Sandiego.gov. http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/city/details.shtml. Retrieved July 1, 2010.) and need to be clearer as to what the page titles, etc are. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Make sure the references used are reliable sources and that the highest quality refs are used too. If there are published academic histories of San Diego or the region, there may be reviewers at FAC who would much rather see those than the Historical Society website, for example.
Language is OK, but the hardest FA criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, a professional level of English.
To that end avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as they impede the narrative flow. Wherever possible these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. As one example the Utilities section is only three sentences in two paragraphs.
There are several MOS issues to watch out for. PEr WP:MOSQUOTE single quotation marks (') are only for quotes within a longer quotation. For regualr quotes double quotation marks (") should be used.
The Demographics section has WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT issues - three sections on 2010, 2008 and 2000 and nothing older??
Avoid sandwiching text between images - the images of Horton and the 1915 World Expo sandwich text on my monitor.
I would include the 1858 hurricane as a sentence in Climate or perhaps History (not just as a See also)
External links section is very large - can it be cut back any? The Census link is used as a ref and so should not be here too.
Make sure the Lead follows WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself . My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
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 all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]