Wikipedia:Peer review/Bentworth, Hampshire/archive1

Bentworth, Hampshire
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I have been trying to nominate this article to GA Class but failed. I have been given advice to submit the page for a Peer Review to see if it helps and try again. Thank you.

Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2010 (GMT)

Finetooth comments: Bentworth sounds like an interesting place, but this article has serious problems that make nomination for GA entirely premature.


 * The main problem with the article is that it lacks sources for most of its claims and therefore violates WP:V. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph. My suggestion would be to work on the sourcing problem first and to worry about other problems when the sourcing problem has been dealt with. Most of the information in the article is not common knowledge. Where does it come from? As you add sources, you might find the "cite" family of templates to be helpful. You can copy-and-paste them into your sandbox to see how they work and to practice using them or, if you'd rather not use templates, to see what kinds of data to include and in what order. You can find these templates at WP:CIT. The blanks in the templates can be filled with the appropriate information such as author's last name, author's first name, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. If you get stuck, please ping me on my talk page, and I'll try to help guide you through the process.


 * Please re-read the first GA review of this article. User:Belovedfreak took a good deal of time and trouble to point out problems with the article. The lead still includes important information not found in the main text and does not conform to the guidelines found in WP:LEAD. It still includes imperial units that have not been expressed in metric, and so on.


 * The Manual of Style generally advises against creating extremely short sections and subsections. The "Parish" section, for example, does not need seven subsections. I would suggest merging them all under the "Parish" head with no subheads.


 * Making bigger sections by expansion or merger will help solve the article's layout problems. Images should not overlap two sections or displace heads or edit buttons. If the sections are tiny, even images set to "thumb" size too big to fit.


 * WP:UKCITIES has helpful information about articles like this one.


 * It's often helpful to look at GA or FA articles on similar topics to see how other editors have solved similar problems. You can find polished articles about cities at WP:FA. See, for example, Blyth, Northumberland, Cheadle Hulme, or Shapinsay. Note how these editors have arranged their material, how they have provided sources for their claims, and how they have handled the layout.


 * The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page can be very useful. The dab tool, for example, finds three links in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)