Wikipedia:Peer review/San Giorgio a Cremano/archive1

San Giorgio a Cremano

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… It was classed as a stub article, but I have re-written it as a much fuller article, with the layout based on other city/borough style pages found elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is referenced, and I want a peer review to determine what needs to be done to lift it at least to good article status please? Thanks, Robert Fleming (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DanaBoomer

Overall, this looks like a nice article, but there is some work that needs to be done on references and layout before it is of GA class. The comments I'm making below are the main ones that I would make if I were reviewing this article for GA status.

References:

Books need page references.
Web references should all be formatted the same way and references that are the same should be combined using the named reference format. Also, there has to be publishers listed for each web reference, and generally they are listed after the title. Also, make sure that you have the author listed if available, and make sure you are listing the publisher and not the work. For example, for ref 15, you currently have Faculty.ed.umuc.edu as the publisher. Instead, you should have David Taylor as the author (which comes before the title), and Jeff Matthews is the publisher (you can see this on the main page of the website, as it has his name as the copyright holder).
Make sure that there isn't anything listed in the References section that isn't used in an in-line citation. For example, there's a book by AA VV which does not appear to be used in-line. If you want to keep them in the article but they aren't used for specific referencing, consider putting them in a "Further reading" section.
The books in the References section should be formatted consistently, and should include ISBNs where applicable (WorldCat can help you with this).
There are still a few areas that need references. A good rule of thumb is generally to have at least one reference for every paragraph.
Ref 22 (pubblicaamministrazione) deadlinks.

MOS:

The Patron Saint external link deadlinks.
Image galleries are discouraged. Instead, integrate what images are essential into the text, and then provide a link to the commons cat for the city using the {{commonscat|Category Name}} template.
There are a lot of redlinks in the article. Now, this is not a requirement that a GA will pass or fail on. However, it does break up the article. What I would suggest is to look through the redlinks and see which of these you really thing have a chance of having articles at some point in the future, and if you haven't already, double check to make sure there isn't already a link under another name that has already been created. If they don't have an article, and you don't think that they stand a good chance of having an article created, then delink them.
The redlink issue is especially important in the Famous citizens section. If people are not notable enough to have an article written about them, they probably shouldn't be included in a "famous" citizens section. What a lot of articles do is move the redlinked citizens to the talk page, and when/if they have articles written about them, they can be moved back to the main page.
The top half of the article has almost no images, while the bottom half is over-populated with them. This should be evened out.
Please check image placement. The placement of images in the Housing and Infrastructure sections makes there be a lot of white space right after the Transportation subheading.
There are a lot of short paragraphs in the article. I'm not saying that all of these should be combined into a bunch of jumbo paragraphs, but it would be nice to see a bunch of these combined so the article doesn't look so choppy.

I haven't done a complete check of the prose, so there are probably things that I missed. However, taking care of the above issues will make the article much cleaner and closer to GA status. I don't generally review city articles, so I don't know what the typical layout for those is and cannot advise you as to how the article complies with those guidelines. I don't watchlist peer review pages, so if you have any questions about this review, please contact me on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]