Wikipedia:Peer review/Lawton, Oklahoma/archive1

Lawton, Oklahoma
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, I feel that it needs a look from someone else. I'm stuck in a rut and can't figure out what it needs, if anything. Any advice and comments would be very helpful.

Thanks, Crimsonedge34 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

but these are the criteria and that's what the FAC is will be based on: Featured_article_criteria rm2dance (talk)
 * "Lawton is primarily centered on government, manufacturing and retail trade industries." -- if there isn't already, there should be info on what % each of these contributes to the national GDP to show comparative significance.
 * maybe try to add stuff about what makes this place "better" or "more interesting" or "more significant" than any other place in this world?
 * or why would someone want to live here as opposed to any other place
 * stating boring facts like "Lawton has two AM Stations" is exactly that -- stating boring facts

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to WP:GAN or WP:FAC.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. An FA on a small city that may be a good model is Lock Haven, Pennsylvania.
 * There is a toolbox on this PR page which has a disambiguation link checker which finds one dab link that needs to be fixed.
 * There are also several dead external links that the EL checker finds, which will need to be fixed too
 * The History section seems too brief to me. I would add a bit more on the Native American history before Fort Sill was established, as well as giving more on the relation with Fort Sill. Or when did I-44 arrive? Were there important railroad lines before that ?
 * In another example, unless you know Fort Sill is not closing, the Base Closing sentence makes little to no sense without some context. See WP:PCR
 * Watch grammar too - for example, it is unclear what the last phrase means in The city was opened to settlement through an auction of town lots beginning on August 6, 1901 and were completed sixty days later.[12]  What was completed after 60 days - the settlement of the town? the auction of lots? Plus were as a verb does not match the previous verb in number
 * The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that make the article's flow choppy
 * I checked one photo - File:Henry Ware Lawton.jpg and it has no source. If this were to go to FAC the images will be checked and this would not pass muster. Where is the photo from? How can it be shown that this is the work of a US Government employee?
 * I would try to include a bit of Geology in the Geography section
 * Spell out numbers under 10 (so fourth, not 4th)
 * In the Government section, I would specify the year (As of 2011...) to make it clear when this was last updated
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

PS One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness - so even if it is stating boring facts, the article needs to be comprehensive