Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington, D.C./archive2

Washington, D.C.

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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that the page is almost ready to be renominated for Good Article status. I would like any help tidying up references, adding some where they may be needed, and general comments on the overall structure of the article.

Thanks, Epicadam (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Doncram You might work in a link to List of National Historic Landmarks in Washington, D.C., perhaps in the last paragraph on other points of interest. It lists 87 sites on the U.S. National Register that are further designated National Monuments, National Memorials, and various other national-importance sites, which is quite exceptional. (In particular it lists the 74 National Historic Landmarks (many of which are privately owned), and 15 National Park Service-administered sites (of which 2 are also NHLs).) That is an article which has been completed out to cover all of the sites and to include at least a stub article on each one, recently, and a local wikipedian is adding pictures and refining descriptions. I think it is worth linking to already. You might also review it to see if there are any individual sites worth mentioning, in addition to or in place of any of those individual sites that you do mention already. doncram (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Doncram. I added the link as a seealso at the top of the section. I see what you're saying about the plethora of historic sites in D.C., as a native Washingtonian as well I know there are a lot of things that could be included on that page. It's hard to make a determination as to which ones are worthy of mention on the main page and which ones aren't! Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Epicadam (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]