Wikipedia:Peer review/List of United States district and territorial courts/archive1

List of United States district and territorial courts

• 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because MZM and I have worked on it for a bit and think it is nearly ready for FL, but need more feedback.

Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A helpful article. It may be even more helpful to list the districts alphabetically by state, as you have done, but with the state name first, e.g.: Alabama, Northern District of, etc.. This would assist the sorting process in the table. Comments by Sctechlaw (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hint: You can use {{sort}} to alphabetize the entries by state. For example: {{sort | Alabama, Northern District | [[Northern District of Alabama]]}} Jafeluv (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Jafeluv

Lead:

• The formal naming convention for the courts to precede them with "United States District Court for." – There's something wrong with the grammar here.
• Article III or Article Three? Be consistent.
• The largest court courts by number of judges is a tie between are Central District of California and the Southern District of New York, each with 28 judgeships. – It's not a competition, and "each with x judgeships" already makes it clear that they have the same number of judges, so "tie between..." is redundant. (This also applies to the following sentence.)
• The lead should not contain more than four paragraphs (see here). Many of the paragraphs are very short and could be merged together.

Images:

• The image captions should be wikilinked where appropriate.

Active courts:

• Court of appeals doesn't sort right (10th before the 1st, etc). See my hint above. The chief judges could also be sorted by surname, but that's not a big deal really.

Notes:

• This doesn't need its own section. It could well be under Defunct courts, where it belongs.

In general I think the article is very informative and without any major issues. I like the placement of images, and it looks all images are free use, as they should be. The lead is the part that requires the most work for FL in my opinion. I think it has too many short sentences and too short paragraphs, which breaks the flow. It might require some rewriting. This guide might help with that, if you aren't familiar with it yet. You may also want to make stubs for the redlinks if their targets are notable, or if not remove the links. Good luck with the article. Jafeluv (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)