Wikipedia:Peer review/Art Deco/archive1

Art Deco
This peer review discussion has been closed. I would like to get this article up to GA status and would like to know what still needs to be done. Any feedback or constructive criticism would be welcome.

Thanks, Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting text, generally well-written, and I like the images as well. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:


 * The lead of a Wikipedia article should be a summary or abstract of the main points of the whole article. Ideally, it includes at least a brief mention of each of the sections in the main text, and it includes nothing that is undeveloped in the main text. Your existing first paragraph doesn't mention anything from "Decline and resurgence" or "Surviving examples" and it includes terms like "Bauhaus" that don't appear in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.
 * Seems like I've got this sorted. I've put in a bit of information about the decline and resurgence.


 * Other encyclopedias such as 'Encarta (citation 18), travel sites such as southbeachhotels.com (citation 26), and personal web sites such as www.vintageperiods.com/artdeco (citation 10) are relatively weak sources. As you work on the article, you might want to replace these with stronger sources.
 * I've kept Encarta as a reference for now, but have removed the other references from the text.


 * Single-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon. To solve the problem, you can expand them or merge them with other paragraphs. "Decline and resurgence" consists of two paragraphs. The second one is a sourced orphan (one-sentence paragraph), and the first one lacks a source. You might merge the two paragraphs and add a source or sources for the other material in the section.
 * Fixed this section up with a quick merge and removal of unsourced statements.


 * You have used the "cite" family of templates for most of the citations, and that works well. However, some of the citations are incomplete or arranged incorrectly, and many of the incomplete ones do not use the cite family. In particular, citations 23 through 29 are irregular and should be fixed. Other citations lack data that should be added. If possible, include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date for on-line sources.
 * They're looking a bit better now; I've fixed them so they all use cite web templates, and have added in the title for one of them that was previously lacking one.


 * T he last section lacks sources. Generally, it's a good idea to source each paragraph as well as any claim involving statistics, quantities, or ideas that might be questioned.
 * No more available online sources for this section, and I can't find any written sources, so I've removed the unverified info and fixed up the section header.


 * Images of Art Deco structures in Cuba, Brazil, or the UK would be nice if you can find ones that are free-use.


 * The Durham Western Heritage link in the bibliography is dead, and the Oklahoma Art Heritage page has moved. You can check the links at any time with the link checker at checklinks.


 * The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads. For that reason, I'd suggest dropping the "Art Deco" part of subhead 4.1 and using something like "House design in the UK".
 * Done.

I hope you find this brief review helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)