Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Indiana/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.

History of Indiana

 * 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 May 2008.
 * 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 May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am wanting to submit History of Indiana for FA but I want to make sure the article is as good as possible first. Another user and myself had written the article largely from scratch. Coverage of the topic is good and so is references, images, etc. My concerns are 1. Reference formating 2. Length (although i am not sure how much can be cut without comprising the themes of the article)

Any suggestion or assistance would be really appreciated.


 * I've standardized the refs with cite web and cite book. I've also expanded referencing in the areas it was lacking as suggested. Much of what is stated is generally non controversial and somewhat common knowledge, in my opinion. I could reference almost every sentence. I am not certain where to draw the line, I just try to have at least one ref per thought, or paragraph. Charles Edward 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Charles Edward 18:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs )
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Can you find an infobox?
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between.
 * The United States section has one citation - Add more.
 * As with Indiana Territory
 * And Morgans Raid
 * Post War Era could use some more...
 * "We the Representatives of the people of the Territory of Indiana, in Convention met, at Corydon, on Monday the tenth day of June in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixteen..." needs a citation.
 * This an reliable source?
 * Consider using citeweb, citenews etc. with the references.
 * That's it from me. «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Milk's Favorite Cookie's comments above. I do not think that this is ready for FAC yet. Here are few more 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A model article is always useful - History of Minnesota was just WP:TFA and is a great model article for ideas on structure, weight, references, etc.
 * Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to be a summary of the article, and should probably be expanded to four paragraphs given the length of the article.
 * The semi-automated peer review has some useful suggestions.
 * The article needs an image in the upper right corner - I think Image:Indywarmem.jpg is quite striking and might be a useful lead image.
 * Internet references need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The current references are all lacking this - this alone would be enough to fail the article at FAC for most reviewers.

Comments from
 * Large sections are unreferenced.
 * Per WP:MOS, the use of curly graphics quotation marks is discouraged. Since FAC requires compliance with the MOS, you need to remove those.
 * Lead section is probably too short for the size of the article.
 * Lots and lots of short choppy paragraphs. Consider consolidating some.
 * As above, your web references lack publishers. Make sure they all conform to the WP:RS guidelines also. Your references also vary considerably in format. Sometimes you give author first, sometimes you put author after the title. Try to make them consistent. Use or  or similar templates to help with keeping your formatting consistent.
 * Hope this helps. 04:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)