Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Superfund sites in the United States/archive1

List of Superfund sites in the United States

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a featured list. Please provide any constructive criticism. Specifically, I am not sure if the article format should remain with the current format or not. If the states/territories are put into a table, then more info could be added (i.e. # of listed sites, deleted sites, proposed sites). However, this list would constantly be changing. Also, the simple format allows users to click on the state/territory of interest without scrolling. These state/territory specific lists would then have the pertinent info. Thanks in advance, Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maria

While I am not too familiar with the process of developing/promoting Featured Lists, this particular list is... stingy. I definitely suggest expanding, and here's why:

As it is now, I don't believe it would fulfill criteria 3a at WP:WIAFL: "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items."
Some of the info you mention above (number of sites, past/proposed sites, etc.) would really help the understanding of the topic, the process of choosing Superfund sites, and other details that can be explored in more detail at the separate lists. Yes, it will have to be updated more frequently if time-sensitive material is added, but that's where an online encyclopedia shines, right? :)
Without further detail, this article seems to be only a holding pen for links to the real lists...
... and in that case, why not just move the branched off articles into this one? If length is the issue here, consider that how long an article is (or how short) is not included at WP:WIAFL; a featured list need only be easily navigated.
Users don't mind scrolling. Honestly. Although obviously clean and succinct, this article is almost unnecessary in that it does little more than offer up a description that is already present at Superfund and related articles.

I'm not sure what more to suggest, really. It's an interesting subject, of which I was not previously aware, and additional work could only make it better. In its current, abbreviated state, however, I'm afraid it wouldn't stand much a chance as an FL. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]