Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Yellowstone National Park related articles/archive1

List of Yellowstone National Park related articles

 * 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 March 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 March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because: Another editor has suggested this Yellowstone List be nominated for Featured List status. As of yet, it has not undergone a peer review.

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear that some work has been put into this, I think it is a candidate for deletion (although much of it can be salvaged as actual lists). Here are some suggestions for improvement. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Hope this helps with other better lists. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The most basic problem with the list is the title. Wikipedia calls organizations of article categories, not lists. The organizing criteria for a list should not be the fact that all of these articles are in the Yellowstone category, but rather that they all are about the same topic. I think the list as it currently exists is way too broad a topic, but I also think big chunks of it could be saved / serve as the basis for better, smaller, more focused lists. Please read Stand-alone lists carefully.
 * Next read Featured list criteria. Then read this article. Here are the two most obvious FL problems:
 * It has no (zero) references, but a FL must meet the criteria for verifiability, citations, and reliable sources
 * The lead is one sentence. The FL criteria says Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Please see WP:LEAD too.
 * This also has a Trivia section, which is discouraged in any article, but especially in Featured content - see WP:TRIVIA
 * The information that is there is not organized in an obvious way that I could tell - people are not in alphabetic or chronological order, topics seem to be listed at random, there is little overall structure.
 * I would split out a lot of the smaller sections as real lists. "List of people associated with Yellowstone" is one obvious example. Another would be "List of geysers at Yellowstone", but wait I see there is already a List of Yellowstone geothermal features, which this list includes. Lists do not generally include other lists.
 * Perhaps Rivers, lakes and waterfalls of Yellowstone could be another list.
 * I will give you a week to salvage things, then nominate this for deletion. will move the top part to a new name, perhaps List of people associated with Yellowstone.


 * I tend to agree with Ruhrfisch. This article would need quite a lot of work to get towards featured list quality. I would definitely start by deciding exactly what is the scope and purpose of this list, then rename it appropriately. Start looking at other featured lists to get a model. I think the most important aspect to consider is that a featured list is never really just a list, but offers significant additional information that a category isn't capable of providing. Best of luck with this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment As a FLC reviewer, I'm not sure that this list would ever be eligible for FLC. It just seems like this is a structured and wikified category—with pictures. Not all lists can be potential FL material, just as some very short articles may never pass muster at FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)