Wikipedia:Peer review/Post Oak Mall/archive1

Post Oak Mall

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 January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback on what else the article may need and how its progressed so far before attempting a GA or FA nomination. Its well-sourced, but is it well-structured? Well-written? Comprehensive? Etc.

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This a good start. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

The links in citations 1, 3, 5, and 9 are dead, and I didn't check all the others. In the case of newspaper links that have expired, it's OK to convert them to off-line sources. The paper versions still exist even if the on-line versions have disappeared. For other kinds of dead links, though, it would be good to repair the links or find new sources, if possible.

To get to GA, you'll need images. One of the criteria is that the article is to be illustrated, where possible. It's clearly possible in this case.

Some of the wikilinks go to the wrong articles. An example is the Plitt movie theater in "Beginnings", which links to the biography of a botanist. Wilson's links to a disambiguation page. I'd suggest checking all of the links in the article to make sure they make sense.

Words for time like "currently" are often ambiguous. An example can be found in the sentence about David Gwin in "Renovations", which ends with "details on what the renovation would entail are currently unknown." It would be better to say something like "As of 2008, details about what the renovations would entail are unknown."

Orphan paragraphs of single sentences such as the David Gwin sentence are generally frowned upon. The problem can be solved either by expansion or by merger with other paragraphs. I tried to read the source article to see how this particular instance might be expanded, but citation 10 is dead.

The lead of a Wikipedia article should summarize the rest of the article, and it should not introduce material that is not developed in the rest of the article. The existing lead has quite a bit of material about the economic impact of the mall (taxes, retail sales, visitation statistics) that's not discussed elsewhere. One possible solution might be to move this material to a new section called "Economics" or "Economic impact" and to expand it if possible.

I hope these brief comments are helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your comments except the first two. I'll go through and see if I can find updates the newspaper links (the Eagle redid its website :P) and will try to get a picture of the mall. Would a picture of its entry sign suffice (similar to the one I did for Willowbrook Mall (Houston, Texas)), do you think? Getting a good picture of the mall itself is difficult without being in the air because of all the roads around it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all links now fixed as well :) (Need to get back to the local library so I can find the original articles and add their page numbers and stuff so its less of an issue :) ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry sign would be one solution and certainly better than no illustrations. The mall project page list four mall articles that have reached GA here. I looked at all four just now to see how those editors had solved the illustration question. The solution varies according to the situation. Flat malls are tougher than malls with towers or multi-floor buildings. My suggestion would be to take your camera to to the mall and capture 50 or so images from different angles when the light is right and pick the best one or two or three. Interior shots might work as well as exterior depending on the lighting, the floor layout, and what kind of camera equipment you are using. Try some verticals as well as horizontals. Put the best image in the infobox. If you haven't looked at the other GAs, you might get some ideas for what works best. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]