Wikipedia:Peer review/Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Baltimore Branch Office/archive1

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Baltimore Branch Office

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to know how to further improve this article.

Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This article has potential. The NRHP infobox is good, and the main sections provide a skeletal framework. Here are some suggestions for improvement.


 * The ideal lead provides a summary or abstract of the whole article in such a way that the reader can simply read the lead to grasp the main points. The existing lead is really a set of introductory paragraphs rather than a summary of the article. It should be re-written to include at least a mention of the building and employment sections of the main text, and it should not include material that is undeveloped in the main text sections. I would suggest moving a lot of the material in the lead into a new section called "Purpose" or "Operations" or "Function" or something of the sort that would explain the purpose(s) of the bank and how it carries it (them) out.


 * I'd suggest moving the "News" section to the bottom rather than putting it at the top on grounds that it is of temporary interest and can be expected to disappear from the article as time goes by. It would be good to expand it a bit to include what effect, if any, the change will have on the people who use the bank. If the change is controversial, it would be good to briefly describe the controversy. The last sentence of the "News" section addresses the reader directly, which is a Manual of Style no-no. You can solve the problem by turning the sentence into a footnote inside "ref" tags. It might say, "[[File:Federal Register-Vol74No33.pdf]] documents the change."


 * Normally, the infobox goes in the upper right. I'd suggest moving the NRHP box to the upper right-hand corner.


 * The title needs a comma, thus: "Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Baltimore Branch Office". In fact, I'd suggest imitating the NRHP title and dropping the word "Office" as well as adding the comma.


 * If you can obtain a hi-resolution image of the bank building, you can add it to the infobox. The current image is too low-res for this.


 * "It support Check 21 operations, supply coin and currency to financial institutions and work to maintain stability in the financial sector throughout the fifth district and also work with local elected officials and non-profit organizations to support fair housing initiatives throughout the Fifth District." - One of the problems with copy-and-paste from a source is that it leads to strange constructions like this one. Aside from the bureaucratic language, "it" needs singular verbs, "supports" and "supplies" and "works". "Check 21" needs to be explained because most readers will have no idea what it means. "Fair housing initiatives" is another term that needs explaining.


 * "What is the meaning of "the code E5"? What are the codes for?


 * How many people work at the bank? The interns start at $18.98 an hour, but what about the other workers?


 * It's not a good idea to link common words like "government", "paid", "employees", and "expenses" since most readers already know what they mean. You don't want to distract them with unnecessary links.


 * In the Notes section, titles should be rendered in what's called "title case" rather than all caps. Thus note 17 would be "GW Finance Professor... " rather than "GW FINANCE PROFESSOR... ". Ditto for the notes with "FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM" rather than "Federal Reserve System"

I could say more, but perhaps this is enough to get you started. After you revise, it would be a good idea to ask another editor to look over the results and do a bit of copyediting. I hope my brief comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do what I can.Smallman12q (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)