Wikipedia:Peer review/Times Square/archive1
- 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 July 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I REALLY want to help fix this article, all I need to know is what I should focus on.
Thanks, Irunongames • play 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Brief comments from Nikkimaria
- The title of the article shouldn't be doubled in headings
- "Citation needed" and "unsourced" tags need to be addressed
- Lists should be converted to prose as much as possible
- Pop culture section needs cleanup, and should be pared down
- References are mostly bare URLs - should be expanded, preferably using cite templates
- Blogs are not reliable sources
- Needs a general copyedit
Just some general observations, feel free to disagree. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comments from David Fuchs
By popular request :):
- I'm not sure what File:JessicasNewYorkPortrait2.jpg adds to the article. It's an example of portraiture, sure, but that doesn't mesh with the caption (which talks about the act of portraiture), takes up a lot of vertical space, and doesn't have the proper info on its description page (which means it might not even fly as a validly used image, anyhow.) This also extends into the issue prevalent in articles like these in that there are often too many images, diluting and overpowering the text. Some judicious picking of the best-quality images might be best. To me, the images with the least amount of significant info being imparted are File:NYPDManhattanNewYorkCity.jpg, File:Times Square 09.JPG, and File:Times Square Night.JPG
- The "Times Square" in pop culture should be cut or converted into a short summarizing paragraph. It's iconic, okay, but mentioning every film it's appeared in is not a good practice, or a feasible one.
- Similarly, the notable landmarks is a rather disingenuous heading, as it covers what corporations are there, which aren't notable landmarks themselves. The entire section could be prosified, and needs sourcing. Speaking of sourcing...
- The entire article needs moar sources! Right now you appear to be just using web sources, which for such a topic won't cover it. You've got some promising paragraphs about Times Square history, but A) they aren't sourced and B) need to be expanded. Right now the article only gives us a superficial look at the topic. There's a book mentioned in the bibliography, which apparently hasn't been used (or hasn't been directly cited), I would grab a hold of it if you could. Books are going to be a necessity for expanding this topic. Even a superficial Google Books search brought up interesting tidbits (e.g. [1]), but get out to a library and search as well. You'll probably be best doing that and avoiding the travel books :)
Overall, it's a great start, it just needs some expansion and sourcing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)