Wikipedia:Peer review/Shrewsbury/archive1

Shrewsbury[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's of a fairly good standard, and relatively has lots of references, but I'm not sure how It can be made better. I believe it could be near GA standard.

Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems pretty close to GA to me, and not too far from FA. Here are some suggestions:

In the Lead, 9 miles should also be given as kilometres (per MOS). Done
In History, not sure if quotes here are needed (it was during the "late Middle Ages" (14th/15th Centuries) in which...) - if it is a direct quote, it must be cited. If not a quote, why is it in quotation marks? Done Just removed the quote, don't know why it was there!
Last two paragraphs in Geography are unsourced. Mileage from there to Wales is inconsistent with the lead. Done
Landmarks section - use of "you" seems unencylcopedic in The town is known as the "Town of Flowers" and this was the motto printed onto many of the signs as you entered the town on major roads... Done
Notable people section - Charles Darwin, a biologist and evolutionary theorist, one of the most important thinkers of the nineteenth century and one of the greatest scientists of all time needs a reference (extraordinary claims - cite is only to his birthplace). Many of the people listed here are unreferenced. Done provided ref for Darwin and other unreferenced 'notables'.
There is some repetition - notable people lists Shrewsbury School alumni, then the school section lists them again. Done removed from education section
Some of the pictures are laid out throughout so as to give a lot of white space - perhaps alternating images left and right would work? Done
All of the references from the internet need title, publisher, author if known, and access date. Mostly Done... Question- do I need to give 'publisher/work' for things like 'Shropshire Star website' where the publisher is 'Shropshire Star'. Doesn't seem much point to me. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are fairly nitpicky - hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the done symbols as space is very tight in PR. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, sorry. :)Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and nominate this for GA then. Thanks for your input!Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were an article in the Shropshire Star, then yes for title and publisher, but I think for just the newspaper website and GA, no separate publisher is OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]