Wikipedia:Peer review/Launceston, Tasmania/archive1

Launceston, Tasmania

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think we need an outside opinion on what the article should be rated.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DanaBoomer

Overall, I would say this article is still probably at C-class, although it is getting very close to B-class. Here are some issues that should be addressed to get the article up to B-class:

References:

Web references need publishers, which should be listed after the title.
References should all be formatted the same way, either always using cite templates or never using them.
References should be located immediately after punctuation, with no space in between.
There are quite a few places that need references. All of the fact tags should be taken care of, and a good rule of thumb is to have at least one reference for every paragraph.

MOS:

The number of images and graphics in this article make it choppy, break up the text, and make it harder to read. Either some of them should be removed, or more text should be added to raise the ratio of text to graphics.
There are a lot of short paragraphs in the article, which contribute to the choppiness. Either combine or expand these.
There are a few existing hidden comments pointing to places with possible POV, sourcing and other issues. These should be taken care of.
The lead should be expanded. For an article of this length, three to four solid paragraphs is recommended. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, with no original information. This way, it generally doesn't need references, although some editors choose to reference the lead anyway, it's a personal preference.
Take a look over the table of contents and make sure that the division look appropriate. For example, right now, history gets no subsections, while transportation has five. Looking at this, I would say that some (or all) of the transportation sections could be combined. There are other examples, just by looking at the ToC.

I haven't done a full review of the prose, but the comments above should help propel you over the hump to B-class, and then down the road to GA-class if you are looking at that. I don't watchlist peer reviews, so drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this review. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]