Wikipedia:Peer review/Kentucky/archive2

Kentucky
I'd like to promote this article to FA status.  Cool Blue  Light my Fire! 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Overall it looks pretty decent, and it compares fairly well in both layout and content to the FA'd Minnesota article. With a little work it could become an FA. Here's a few comments that I hope are of some use:
 * The "Top tourist attractions in Kentucky" table needs citations.
 * Working on that right now... Done. Sort of. I put in a few references. I could only find three on the table, though. Cool Blue  talk to me 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Law and government" has too many single-paragraph sections. These could be merged.
 * Done. Acdixon 11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Demographics of Kentucky" table is unclear to me. What is with the Hispanic-only rows and why have Hispanic &times; non-hispanic cells? Perhaps an explanation is needed?
 * The railroad and barge images in the Roads section could be moved down to the corresponding sections to reduce clutter.
 * Done. Acdixon 11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Culture section has some inline links that should be converted to citations for consistency.
 * I am currently attempting to work on that. It may take a little time. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 01:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little dubious about the gallery section. That might need to be relocated. There is a fairly large Kentucky category over on the commons that contains plenty of images.
 * I think the gallery is fine, there aren't that many images there -- by the way, I think if I were reading an article about a topic I knew nothing about a few extra photos couldn't hurt. Anyone agree? -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 01:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we eventually need to absorb the best images from the gallery into the main article and drop the rest of them. However, I don't think we're anywhere close to FA, or even GA, at this point, so I'd like to keep them until we decide which ones are best. Acdixon 13:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many of the citations consist of only a link. You'll probably get slammed for that when you go for a FAC. I'd use cite templates throughout to get a consistent look.
 * Working on that right now. Done. Cool Blue  talk to me 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good luck. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd commented in a discussion that the article looks good but has some problems that are more subtle. The article in places seems like a cobbling together of trivia and tourism information that, while interesting, doesn't always really describe it's subject properly. I was asked for an example, so I figure this is a good a place to do it as any.

Take the geography section. Probably the easiest to do well, too. But Kentucky's starts out with a description of the borders. Okay, pretty basic. Then it devotes a paragraph to the Kentucky Bend. This is what I'm talking about... very interesting bit of trivia, but not at all relevent to the geography of the overall state. If someone asks me "What's Kentucky like?" I don't say "Well 0.01% of the land is called the Kentucky bend...". Interesting, but not really helpful in describing the state as a whole. Then the section describes the traditional regions, which is a getting back on the right track, but it really just names them. The rest of the section is devoted to how many counties there are and how they formed. Very interesting, but the section has failed to describe what the state is actually like, Geography-wise. No mention of the farm-dominated central portions of the state, no mention of the Appalachian Plateau in the east. No mention of where the forests are, the cumberland gap, etc. Just some tidbits of trivia, really.

I will try to improve this section, and contribute more to this peer review, which I think is a good idea. --W.marsh 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)