Wikipedia:Peer review/Galveston Bay Area/archive1

Galveston Bay Area
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to move this toward GA. Some editors have raised some serious concerns but have refused to discuss or provide details. I'm hoping for an actionable set of suggestions so that we can nominate the article in the near future.

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article has three major cleanup banners, all dated September 2009. Peer review requires that articles be free of such banners (see Nomination procedure on WP:Peer review page). If you are in dispute with the editors that posted them, could you find a non-involved editor to determine whether they are still valid? Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Further note: Having read through the article, I don't think the alleged violations justify the retention of major cleanup banners and I have removed them. The editors concerned have been invited to bring their concerns to this review. My initial comment is that there are certain POV issues to be addressed, along with uneven citations and several other problems. I will post a list of my detailed observations in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Review comments: I have got as far as the end of the History section:-
 * Lead
 * Does this lead provide a complete summary of the article's content? It seems on the short side.
 * The infobox map of Texas in uninformative. It has no proper caption; the red dot which signifies the Bay area is almost indiscernible. Better to replace with a properly captioned map of the coastal area of Texas, on which the location of the Bay area can be clearly seen
 * The word "sleepy" should be in quotes, not italics


 * Boundaries
 * Again, the map and its caption are very confusing to people (like me) who are unfamiliar with the area's geography. What is the significance of the different colours?
 * The use of bullet points within text should be generally be avoided
 * Referencing: citations should normally be at the ends of sentences/paragraphs, otherwise it can be unclear what information is covered by the citation. For example, the phrase "some sources use a more limited definition", and the second sentence of the second paragraph, do not appear to be cited at present. In any event you need to amplify on "some sources". (Note: the issue of mispositioning, or lack of, citations appears to be recurrent through the article)
 * Municipalities
 * "is typically considered to at least include..." is very clumsy wording. I suggest the first two sentences be rewritten thus: "The Bay Area generally comprises Pasadena, Clear Lake City (a part of Houston and Pasadena), League City, Webster, La Porte, and neighboring communities,[8] together with the nearby bedroom communities such as Deer Park, Dickinson and Friendswood.
 * Second paragraph: reword to avoid the repetition of "as well". Also, make it clear what you mean by "this loosely defined term".
 * I suggest these two short paragraphs be combined to form one paragraph.
 * Subdivisions - minor point: If possible avoid writing very short, single-sentence paragraphs as this militates against smooth prose.
 * History : There are citation issues throughout this section
 * Preamble: Has no references at all, and reads like individual opinion.
 * Early history: First paragraph, only the first sentence is cited. Also, the last sentence of the colony, about the abandonment of the pirate colony, is uncited.
 * Mexican dominion: The latter parts of the first and third paragraphs are uncited, and the second paragraph has no citations at all.
 * U.S. annexation: This section is generally well-referenced, but I wonder if the title "U.S. annexation" is really appropriate, since the text covers over a half-century's history following the annexation.
 * Modern times: the tendency continues, in the second, third and fourth paragraphs, of ending paras with uncited statements. Also, again there may be an issue with the title - can 1901 really be considered as in "modern times"?

I am going to be away, and largely offline, for several days - will return to the review next week. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I think Brian was scared away by the acrimony that was going on as he tried to help out. I don't think anybody else is going to chime in so I'm going to end this request. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)