Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive5

United States

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 because I'd like to get it to GA status (and maybe one day, FA status...), primarily because of its high visibility. It was delisted in August of this year due to concerns about length and excessive detail. The readable prose size has decreased significantly thanks to the work of several editors, including myself, but my recent nomination for GA was deleted without explanation—I'm guessing because of length. Thus, I thought I might open a request for peer review.

I think one important area of improvement is the History section. It's just too detailed, but I feel like there will be significant resistance to removing/moving content from it.

Thanks, Ovinus (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing comment; I would never support an article this WP:SIZE at FAC, but not all reviewers agree with me. My reasoning (and general FAC advice as a former FAC delegate, now called Coord) is at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. I think your best shot at FAC is to rigorously apply WP:SS, and I think sprawling Geography articles become maintenance nightmares very quickly. If you get it to around 7 or 8,000 words of readable prose (currently above 12,000), I would review. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments in addition to the length issue which have been covered: There is some obviously unsourced information in this article. A few reasonably long paragraphs in various sections lack a single source. Other scattered sentences throughout the article also clearly lack sources, and this does make me wonder how much of text in front of sources is from those sources. On the sources themselves, book sources currently included in Further Reading need to be separated from those included solely for Further Reading. The article has a proliferation of hatnotes, many of which seem undue. For example, the History section lists as main articles "American business history, Economic history of the United States, and Labor history of the United States", which are specific subtopics within History rather than being Main articles. On more minor points, there are a few scattered very short paragraphs, and a bit of sandwiching, but both are at much lower levels than I usually see in country articles. CMD (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]