Wikipedia:Peer review/Ellis Island/archive1

Ellis Island
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i have done a reorganization of article: new template, opener, subsection, headers, addtional references. I have also change it's class from B to C, but believe it may just qualify for B if nudged a bit. Could use some fleshing out in some section, particularly ownership (pre-immigration station era), and general review.

Thanks, Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a good start on an important topic, but still needs more work if it is to become a WP:GA, and much more for WP:FA. 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; 00:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There were two PRs open for the same article at the same time. I deleted the second and added the bit of text here that was not already present. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically articles are not accepted for peer review if they have major clean up banners in place - the Ownership and In the arts sections need to have their banners addressed
 * The toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review finds several issues that need to be worked on. The automated tips have several useufl suggestions. There are 5 or so disambiguation links that need to be fixed too.
 * The external links tool finds two dead links. One of them is to Geocities.com, which is not a reliable source. The article also lacks alt text per WP:ALT (this is no longer a requirement for FAC though)
 * The lead is very short for an article of this length and needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Article needs more references, for example the Staff and In the arts sections have no refs at all, and the block quote in Ownership needs a ref too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Many of the reference have incomplete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Images should not sandwich text between them, but this happens in at least two places in the article.
 * File:AnnieMoore.jpg is of a sculpture and so is a copyrighted work of art. If it was produced as a work for hire for the US Goveernment it owuld be Public Domain (free to use), but more information is needed.
 * There are some places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these disturb the flow of the article and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * There are also two extensive lists - staff and medical. Could these be converted to text / prose?
 * The See also section is usually saved for links which are not already used in the article