Wikipedia:Peer review/Mexico–United States border/archive1

United States-Mexico border
I would like to work this up to WP:FA standards; if anyone here is able to help, please leave a message on my talk page! If you've got any advice, then please let me know here! --SunStar Net 11:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not ready for peer review, it is simply too short. There is much more to be covered on the topic.-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  18:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope some of this has helped! Seegoon 15:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here are my views:
 * 1) The first thing you need to address is converting the external links into inline citations. See WP:FOOTNOTE for guidelines on how to do this. Bear in mind, citations go after punctuation.
 * 2) The title is "United States-Mexico border", but the bolded text in the lead paragraph reads "international border between Mexico and the United States". I think it would be appropriate to decide which country is going to come first in the name.
 * 3) The section at the end of "Geography", regarding which states come first from west to east is a little confusing, partly because of how it appears on the page, mangled by the images.
 * 4) In fact, in that paragraph, there is a little too much use of the em dash. Try using other syntactical constructions to keep the prose more lively.
 * 5) "History" needs a great deal of expansion - it should truly be the crux of this article in my opinion. I think it needs to at least match the length of "Security issues". As for content, I'm not American or Mexican, so that's surely your domain.
 * 6) There are a few problems with "Border Surveillance". For one, "Surveillance" shouldn't be capitalised. Secondly, it is heavily biased towards the US. Whatever Mexican policy is; it should be mentioned, even if only in passing. Ideally, and for eventual FA, the security measures of the two respective parties must be discussed with equal rigour. Also, it might be worth making it a sub-section of "Security issues" until it is sufficiently fleshed out to stand alone.