Wikipedia:Peer review/Christchurch, Dorset/archive1

Christchurch, Dorset
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because a considerable amount of work has been done to the article since it was awarded its current status. I welcome any feedback or ideas for improving the article. I have more information to add but I am wary of putting too much in. Is that possible? Thanks, --Ykraps (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I cannot review the article as I have been involved in feedback to it, here and here. In my opinion, this article as it is now has made considerable progress, since I first saw it, which deserves rewarding --Senra (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thank you for your work on this article - sounds like a very interesting place. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest issues with the article as it currently exists is a lack of references. For example the whole Notable Residents section has no refs, and much of the Town Centre and Outskirts sections lack refs, as do many other places in the article. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * Many of the refs lack needed information - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful.
 * The article has quite a few short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interrupt its flow - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded, if possible. There are also some very short sections that could be combined with others - Ethnicity is one sentence and could part of another Demographics section.
 * The disambiguation links finder (in the toolbox in the upper right corner here) finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
 * Article needs to follow WP:HEAD better - for example capitalization
 * Watch images - for example WP:MOSIMAGE says to avoid sandwiching text between images, but the first two images in Industrial history form a sandwich on my monitor, as do two images in Town centre.
 * There are also several places without images, so perhaps some of the images from the gallery could be moved to these - for example the Town Hall image could be in the Governance section.
 * I would also avoid having two images of the same thing in the article - the image of the castle in the article is striking, so why is another one needed in the gallery?
 * You could use the "pipe trick" on links like There was a Saxon mint (coin) in "Twynam" until just before the Norman Conquest. so type mint (coin) and this will show up as mint in the article.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on cities at Featured_articles which may be useful models.

Thanks for the feedback, I have already made a start and will get around to the rest soon. Do I need to copy and paste this elsewhere or will your suggestions remain here? I have already reviewed one article here (Jeffrey Street) but will get around to doing another later. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I received your feedback a couple of days ago but forgot to acknowledge it, sorry.