Wikipedia:Peer review/New England/archive2

New England
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to do as much as possible to prepare it for an eventual WP:GA nomination. I should also note that I wrote a good portion of it several years ago under a different (and long-since deleted) account. That said, it could use a great deal of improvement.
 * Previous peer review

On the positive side, it is well-referenced and rather detailed. On the negative side, it is unorganized, somewhat cluttered, and seems littered with errata and miscellanea. See here for its 2006 peer review nomination.

It's been a while since I've been back at Wikipedia. I suppose that my one question for you all is: what will it take to make this a good article?

Thanks, TimothyDexter (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments from User:GrapedApe
 * Good SVG map at the top.
 * There are items in the lead that are cited. The lead is supposed to be a summarization of the general article, so anything in there ought to be in the main text of the article. Therefore, there really shouldn't be anything requiring a reference in the lead.
 * Love the flags.
 * On my screen the phrase "Banished from Massachusetts for heresy" overlaps with the picture of the shilling. I don't know what is causing that, but maybe moving it higher in the paragraph would be a good idea(?)
 * There are some paragraphs that only have 1 reference. If that reference supports more than 1 sentence in the paragraph, try noting that, with the  thingy.
 * "Region of the United States" is mostly unreferenced.
 * "See also: List of place names in New England of aboriginal origin" doesn't really make sense where it is. Maybe cut it altogether
 * Large parts of geography is unreferenced, which is problematic because it has numbers
 * Expand the Geology section, (obviously)
 * For
 * File:Providence skyline2crop.jpg is low resolution. Is there a better version?
 * " Public health and safety" needs more context and less factoid-ness. Maybe just add a some intro sentences and make it more paragraph-like.
 * Exmpand "Government" section
 * Under "Colleges and universities" there are too many "See also" section, plus that shoudln't be at the bottom of a section
 * There is a wonky see also thing going on in " Private and independent secondary schools"
 * OK, lots of "see also" problems. They should be at the top.
 * Some bare URLS for refs. :(
 * way too many external links. Try trimming the list.
 * Good luck! --GrapedApe (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)