Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Utica, New York/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it for FAC at some point.

Thanks, Buffaboy talk 00:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

[edit]

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. Footnotes in the Notes sect - please add in-line citations at ends of these to back up factual assertions.
  4. Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Utica%2C_New_York - shows lots of problems. Problem defined as anything other than rating of "0" or "200" or even a "200" but with side comment is not good. Recommend archiving at the very least those links to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate.
  5. Suggest instead of all the daughter sects for references, just 3 sects with each their own 2-level subheading, being: Footnotes, Note, and References.
  6. Lede intro sect is a bit imbalanced. Two-sentence-long-paragraph in lede for last paragraph is a bit short.
  7. This is a very long article. Recommend lede length of 4 paragraphs, 5 sentences each.
  8. Notable people - not sure if this needs devoted its own sect, and the pictures should probably go too. Comes off as a bit promotional in tone.
  9. Crime and public safety - quite a short sect to require its own subsection header, suggest just have it as paragraph within its parent sect.
  10. Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Utica%2C+New+York&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - shows copyvio unlikely. Excellent job here, well done !!!
  11. Quite an excellent job with referencing and use of in-line citations, throughout the article, very well done here.
  12. Recommend posting to WP:GOCE to request a copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
  13. Suggest placing neutrally-worded notice to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects linking to this Peer Review and asking for additional comments.
  14. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

I see quite a lot of research and effort has gone into this. Quite well done so far. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and constructive criticism! Buffaboy talk 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think that the culture section is a little bit short. Is there any landmark or cultural properties in this city?--Pkh409 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]