Wikipedia:Peer review/Alexander Dash/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking for wider consensus on how images should be laid out in such smaller articles. Compare the current revision to the one I made roughly a year ago - does the article need that many images to go into detail about windscreens and bus rears? A number of UK bus articles have had images shifted around or removed and replaced entirely over the past year, which has caused some contention within the UK side of WP:WikiProject Buses, so opinions neutral to the WikiProject would be gladly appreciated.
Thanks, Hullian111 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Passing comment: I'm not sure if it might be just me or something, but when I read on Google Chrome at the normal 100% size, the image arrangement is, well, pretty ugly. In this screenshot "The" word (pun intended) is...there, and the rest of the passage does not get seen until after the First Hampshire&Dorset picture (here). Like I said, it might just be me, and shrinking the page to 75% for example helps, but I just felt I needed to point that out because it really does not look very good. In my opinion this needs a cleanup in terms of image placement regardless of whether it's a bus article or not. S5A-0043Talk 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed on the image placement. See MOS:IMAGELOC. Left-aligned images before the main text look out of place. A better choice would be a "Gallery" section.-Ich (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ich Hi, just stopping in a month after your suggestion - never replied in the first place as I'm not totally sure whether I should to keep a neutral perspective. That gallery edit has been done, just wondering if I can canvas your (and maybe @S5A-0043's) thoughts on it. I think its not very... flush from my perspective, as the images form some sort of Jenga formation for want of a better description, but it does the job. Hullian111 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Hullian111 I think it looks better; maybe take a look at it with a {{clear}} tag before the gallery? Still better than before, and more in line with how other image-heavy articles of this length look.-Ich (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, there was originally a clear tag in there before I removed it for seemingly being out of place, I'll just put it back in. Hullian111 (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seconding Ich's opinion. It does look more presentable now. S5A-0043Talk 12:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Hullian111 I think it looks better; maybe take a look at it with a {{clear}} tag before the gallery? Still better than before, and more in line with how other image-heavy articles of this length look.-Ich (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ich Hi, just stopping in a month after your suggestion - never replied in the first place as I'm not totally sure whether I should to keep a neutral perspective. That gallery edit has been done, just wondering if I can canvas your (and maybe @S5A-0043's) thoughts on it. I think its not very... flush from my perspective, as the images form some sort of Jenga formation for want of a better description, but it does the job. Hullian111 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)