Talk:Baltimore/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status.

First, all of the cleanup banners and tags need to be fixed. There are two major cleanup banners, multiple dead links and over half a dozen fact tags from as long ago as August 2008. Major cleanup banners are a quick-fail criteria, but I am willing to give the article a couple of days to see if things are resolved. There are also multiple other areas that need references that aren't marked with citation needed tags, more dead links not marked by dead link tags (see here), and a lot of really short paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded to make the article more readable.

I will leave this review open for a few days to see if work is being completed on the above issues. If it is, I will then take another pass through the article to complete a full review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments (this is not a full review, just some quick observations):

• As a courtesy I went and fixed the bare links. All the references, except a few dead ones, should be reasonably formatted now.
• The article is quite long. IMHO, the length is not justified. Some suggestions of things to cut down on:
  • History: maybe a tad long. Regardless there are some extraneous details (e.g. National Register of Historic Places)
  • Tallest buildings: Link to the list article if you like but these are details that are not important in this article.
  • Neighorhoods: Some good content but definitely does not need to be this long.
  • Culture: Again interesting but a bit too much detail. E.g. the discussion on Baltimorese is too detailed for this article.
  • Government and law enforcement: Merge these sections and tighten up a little. Don't need to mention every agency and don't need to mention current office holders.
  • Education: Get rid of the lists. Discuss the main universities and community colleges. Primary and secondary education should be discussed in broad strokes without getting into every school (unless there are particular schools that are exceptionally notable).

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As very little work has been done on this article (other than the reference formatting, with thanks for that going to Mcorazao) during the period of the review, I am failing this article's GA nomination. I look forward to seeing it back at GAN once the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)