Wikipedia:Peer review/Concord, Massachusetts/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has many of the qualities of a featured article. It is comprehensive, concise, well-supported by citations, links effectively to articles on related topics, and has a quality set of photographs to accompany it. I am eager to hear the thoughts of fellow editors on how this article could be improved and potentially moved forward to FA status. (Hopefully "History" is the proper forum for this article as it largely regards the history of a small but significant American town.)
Thanks, Venicemenace (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Dana Boomer
Although nice, this article is quite a ways from featured standards. There are major issues with references, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance (as a start) that would need to be addressed before the article would have a chance at even WP:GAN, much less WP:FAC. Specifically:
- The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two to three paragraphs is appropriate. Once the article is expanded to cover everything necessary for comprehensiveness, up to four paragraphs might be necessary. The lead should be a summary of the body, and not include information not present in the body. See WP:LEAD.
- By reading the article, one would think that nothing happened in the town during the 20th century. The section needs to be expanded to include more recent history, into which the short sections "Concord grape" and "Plastic bottle ban" could be integrated. Multiple short, choppy subsections make the article look unfinished.
- The article is missing a number of sections that are generally present in good and featured city articles. These include Climate, Government and politics, Economy, Infrastructure and Culture. Other sections sometimes included (if applicable) include Architecture, Law enforcement/crime, Media, etc.
- References needed in Geography and Demographics sections - statistics always need references.
- Bullet point lists (such as the Points of interest, Education and Transportation sections) are frowned upon by the MOS. These can easily be transformed into prose, with additional prose that describes why these links should be important to the reader.
- External links (such as the ones in the Points of interest and Transportation sections) should not be present in the body of the article. Instead, they should either be references or located in the proper "External links" section.
- Reference #20 has a dead link tag
- Reference #42 needs to be expanded with more information
Reading the good article criteria and featured article criteria may help you to get a feel for what these two processes are looking for. Taking a look at the town and city articles already listed at WP:FA and WP:GA would probably also be beneficial. While it looks like you've made a good start on the history section, the other facets of the article need more attention. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)