Wikipedia:Peer review/Woodland, California/archive1

Woodland, California

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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

...I think that a peer review would be very beneficial to this article. I'd like to get input and perspectives from others on how to better this article. In the near future I would like this article to make GA status, and hopefully one day FA status. I have just changed all the references to cite template references and I've made changes according to a feeback post from WP:FEED. Most of the major work on the article I completed this past summer.

Thanks in advance, Killiondude (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Your idea of using FA city articles as models is a good one, and I see that you've been looking at the WP:CITY page for ideas, and that is also good. I see at least one big problem with the article as it stands, and I have some suggestions for improvement.

The big problem is that the entire "Indigenous culture" subsection of the "History" section is copied word-for-word from the source. Even if the source material were licensed for unlimited reproduction, which it does not seem to be, copying is bad. It's much harder to read source material, to abstract from it, and to re-state the main points in new language, but that's what has to be done. The task is easier if you can find multiple sources for each of the content sections. My first suggestion, then, is to do more research on the indigenous culture(s) of Woodland and to re-write this section. The next thing to do would be to check the other sections of the article to make sure the copying problem has not occurred there as well.

Done -Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many parts of the article lack sources. Personal research, which often amounts to "I saw it with my own eyes", can't substitute for a verifiable source. Please see WP:V. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph, every unusual claim, every direct quote, and every statistic or quantitative claim. Groups of statistics may need only one source for the whole group. The whole "Economy" section of the article is unsourced. Much of the history is unsourced. The claim about the size of the plot of land the Yolo Museum sits on needs a source.

Generally, short paragraphs of only one or two sentences should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. Ditto for short sections.

In progress. I began to do this yesterday with a few sections, and will continue. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding a "Geography" section that would include information about where Woodland is in relation to surrounding towns and cities, what highways pass through or near it, what rivers or streams pass through or near it, and so on. Something about the geology of the Woodland area would be good to include in this section as well. Soils, rock types, and unusual formations, if any, could be mentioned here.

Done-ish. See comment below. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "Climate" section would also be a good idea. This could include information about temperatures, precipitation, growing seasons, winds, storms, or anything else related to climate.

Done. See comment below. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the ideas developed in the main text sections and should not introduce material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. I'd suggest adding "Geography" and "Climate" first and then re-writing the lead to include at least a mention of those two and all of the other sections that are not mentioned in the existing lead. Please see WP:LEAD.

I hope these brief comments prove helpful. I would suggest tackling the copying/copyvio problem first. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were useful. It took me a few hours tonight, but I finished rewording and marking where facts were taking from, all throughout the history section. I also cleaned things up and (hopefully) made it more clear in the indigenous people section. I'll work more on the article tomorrow in regards to your other suggestions. Killiondude (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday (or perhaps a couple days ago) I began to merge several short paragraphs into larger paragraphs. I'll continue this, and try to fix short, choppy sentences. I just added a geography section (with a "climate" subsection). I have no references for the geography section other than "I saw it with my own eyes", which I know is looked down upon, but Woodland doesn't really have a whole lot of coverage. The climate section's table info I got from the Weather Channel, but again, coverage on Woodland's climate is not extensive. I will continue to add info to both the Climate and Geography section (finding sources if at all possible), but I feel that right now all I have to work with (for these two topics) are stuff that I know from living there. Any suggestions for this dilemma would be greatly appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]