Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Indiana/archive2

This peer review discussion has been closed.

History of Indiana

 * Previous peer review
 * 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 July 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 July 2008.

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

Mainly I would like input on improving the reading of the article, copy edit. Being rather familiar with most of the topics in the article, I would also like other editors to point out what areas may need additional clarification or what areas may be pared down. Pretty much anything else you think that would keep it from passing a Feature Article review, please let me know.

Thanks, Charles Edward 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. 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; 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the two biggest problem I see with this at FA is lack of references - for example the first paragraphs of Indiana Territory and of Statehood have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Article needs a good copyedit to clean up the language and polish the prose - this is the other one of the biggest problems, a professional level of writing is required for FA. Just in the lead At the time the United States took possession of Indiana, there were only two permanent European settlements in the entire territory. The United States immediately set to work to develop Indiana. The first sentence does not seem factually accurate - wasn't what is now Indiana then just a part of the Northwest Territory (not a separate territory), and the NWT certainly had more than two settlements (and should be mentioned in the lead, since Indiana was part of it for nearly 13 years). The whole "The United States immediately set to work to develop Indiana." sentence is also odd - did the US government decide to do this? Where is the law to cite? How aboiut something like "Settlement and development proceded at a rapid pace" instead?
 * Per the MOS images should not sandwich text (as is now done ion the Indiana Territory, at least on my monitor - the map on the left and Treaty and Harrison images on the right sandwich text. I miss the aerial view of the Indiana World War Memorial.
 * Modern Indiana ends in 1988 - nothing has happened in 20 years?
 * Watch for things that are just plain errors. For example, in the lead the last sentence is During the second half the of the 20th century, Indiana became a leader in the pharmaceutical industry, as Eli Lilly and other companies settled in the state. yet Eli Lilly was founded in Indianapolis in the 1870s and did not settle in the state sometime after 1950.
 * Thanks for your review, I will see what I can do to address the issues. I have done my best with copy edit though, I am admittedly an amateur. Is there somewhere or someone who could assist me with this? In my attempt to summarize the article into the lead I have perhaps left some things to vague, thanks for pointing that out to me. The Indiana World War Memorial was apparently "stolen" from the IHB website, I am trying to get the IHB to give me permission to use it. In regards to the last twenty years, it is more of a lack of good sources (other than news reports), but I will see what I can find! Thanks again. Charles Edward 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask for help for a copyedit at WP:PRV. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)