Talk:Sandberg, California

Review
Hey, GeorgeLouis. I took a look at this one too. I'm sure you can tell of a few things I already wish to suggest; in general, the lead can be expanded to do this article itself some justice, and if possible, other sections should also be added. Being more specific, though...


 * I don't think that references need to be included in the lead, as they should already be proven in the article itself.


 * This isn't really a necessary component, but would it be possible to find an image that provides a good overview of the community as a whole?


 * Encyclopediae aren't supposed to be particularly poetic, although it makes for a great read that way. I think a copyedit is in order, as terrible as it may seem.

Yes, it was engaging, and I think others who come across this article will enjoy it. If you need me, feel free to comment here and on my talk page. I've watchlisted this just in case.

Best of luck, --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 18:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't think that references need to be included in the lead, as they should already be proven in the article itself." Interesting point, and I think it makes sense, but one that I have not found spelled out anywhere. Perhaps I missed it. Can you point me to it?Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's my take on the citation section of the lead guideline. Because so much detail could be placed into settlement articles, the lead is often generalized to the point where no real controversial material is put into the lead (with the possible exception of the NYC lead and a few others); it is, really, an opinion, but one shared by many other city editors. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 23:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will review all the articles I have done recently in the light of this page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)