Wikipedia:Peer review/Glasgow/archive1

Glasgow

 * 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 April 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it could be nominated for Featured Article Status again. Since December 2007, when the last nomination failed, there has been significant improvement to the article. Please suggest any ways to improve this article, rather than negative comments.

Thanks, Andrewmc123 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of effort has gone into this article, but it is not FA-worthy and should not be re-submitted to FAC in anything like its present state. The problem that leaps out and which must be addressed is the problem of sourcing or the lack thereof.


 * A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and anything that is reasonably likely to be challenged. At a glance, I can see that many paragraphs list no sources and are in violation of WP:V, one of the core principles of Wikipedia. The first paragraph of the History section, for example, is dense with information that is not common knowledge and must have come from a source or sources. Figuring out where something came from is a complex and time-consuming task if multiple editors have added unsourced information to the article and then disappeared from the scene. I have sometimes spent hours trying to track down a source or sources for a small number of unsourced claims that sounded plausible and important, so you have my sympathy. To fix the problem, you have to do your own research, find your own reliable sources (explained at WP:RS), delete the unsourced material and add new material with proper sourcing.
 * Further down in the History section, I see a related sourcing problem. The paragraph starting with "The 20th century witnessed both decline and renewal in the city" has one citation, and at first glance it seems to apply to the whole paragraph. However, it turns out to be a source only for the claims in the last sentence of the paragraph. This leaves the rest of the paragraph, with much information that is not common knowledge, with no sources. Again, you have my sympathy because to source this properly, unless you are one of the original main contributors to the article and have kept your notes, you have to re-do the research. I can think of no other way to fix the problem.
 * Other editors have noted the same or similar sourcing problems during earlier reviews. The "citation needed" tags are further evidence of sourcing problems that need to be addressed.
 * Citations to web sites should include, where possible, the author, title, publisher, publication date, url, and access date. Many of the existing citations are incomplete.
 * Quite a few of the citation links are dead. They must all be replaced with live links or links to other reliable sources.

I hope these comments prove helpful even though they provide no easy route to success. Such a route does not exist. Finetooth (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)