Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgian mile/archive1

Georgian mile


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to understand how it might be improved.

Thanks, BaronNethercross (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The article seems mostly well written, I think the best way to improve it is to expand it using the currently cited sources as well as any other RSes you can find (doing a brief Google News search, there seems to be a number of other articles in the Irish media). I would also suggest incorporating the content from the lead into the body of the article somehow and rewriting the lead as a summary of the entire article (per WP:LEAD). Given some of the controversial changes that have been made to the street, I would also recommend paying careful attention to making sure the tone of the article is balanced and has a neutral point of view. I'm not suggesting that a false sense of balance needs to be created or even that anything currently has to be changed necessarily, but it's at least something to consider as you continue to work on the article (e.g. are any of the wordings in the article more loaded than they could be, are there any additional opinions that could be presented in the article even if they are also negative - this would strengthen the reader's confidence in the consensus opinion towards redevelopments of the street - which statements should be stated as fact and which should be attributed as opinion, etc.). One way of achieving a possibly more well-rounded article would be by expanding on the history of the street prior to any changes or some other aspects of the article that are completely unrelated to any controversies (assuming you can find any good sources for this). One thing I did notice though is that "became a bone of contention between preservationists and the ESB for 50 years" is quite closely paraphrased from the Architects' Journal source and a little unencyclopedic in tone in my opinion, possibly you could alter the wording if you think that's a fair criticism too. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Concur with the feedback from Alduin2000 above. Nothing stands out as particularly problematic with what is in the article now. You might want to consider breaking it up into the following sections (the 1965 and 2013 sections could be sub-sections): History, Location, Demographics (population, etc.), Notable Buildings (e.g., any buildings on the mile listed in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage), Parks and Public Spaces, Notable Residents. I'd also consider adding scans of antique maps that highlight the street, if any are available. Hope this helps! nf utvol (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)