Wikipedia:Peer review/Northampton/archive1

Northampton
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love for this to reach GA status. Could you give us a few tips? :)

Thanks, StJaBe (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ugog Nizdast I will do a more in-depth review if you are ready. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that some of References are not fully formatted, use google books citation generator.
 * Minor issues about content
 * Don't think the term 'regeneration' should be used in the lead, consider removing the piped link.
 * Can you clarify "it lies on River Nene"?
 * The town was also the site of two medieval battles in 1264 and 1460. Again, remove the piped links for these dates and put the name of the battle instead.
 * For improving it to a good article, consider referring to these examples at Good_articles/Geography_and_places.


 * Thanks for your great feedback already! The references are the weakest part about this article! Tidied up the Google Books ones; will get on the other ones. I think the mention to regeneration is fine as it, though I have removed the link. How should I clarify its location on River Nene? In terms of the battles, both were called the "Battle of Northampton"... wouldn't it feel a bit superfluous to say, The town was also the site of two medieval battles, the Battle of Northampton (1264) and the Battle of Northampton (1460), instead of retaining how it currently is? Thanks a bunch already! I can't wait to improve this article! :) StJaBe (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More...
 * A common problem in these type of articles: the word 'Northampton' is mentioned excessively, (Northampton is ...Northampton palace...battle of Northampton...Northampton also has). Consider reading the article once more and substituting wherever necessary.
 * Comparing with GAs like Christchurch, Basingstoke and Birmingham,
 * History section needs to be trimmed, or made into separate article if you have the resources, currently I see it relying heavily on reference 1 (British history.ac.uk) If there are no sources, trimming it seems like a good idea given the size of the article. I would also recommend renaming the sub-section titles for example, "modern" does not seem apt, since it describes 16th century as well as present.
 * The 3rd para under sub-section "Ancient", "Following Danish invasion...whose territory extended to the River Welland", lacks any link and explanation about who and which place was conquered (Vikings?)
 * "Medieval" sub-section especially can be trimmed, also I see two unsourced paras.
 * "Modern" too, Stuff like Daniel Dafoe's quote seems trivial (no offence, I like the actor) Still, there's a lot that can be trimmed. Again, it seems to rely heavily on Andrew, Martin: Northampton The Francis Frith Collection, 2002.
 * Some more sections that are weakly sourced; they can be trimmed down or split into separate articles like in other GAs.
 * Northampton has some paras which are unsourced. (mainly 1st and 3rd sub-topics) There must be some refs from the main articles which it summarises, if I'm not mistaken.
 * Northampton, Northampton, Northampton Northampton, Northampton and Northampton.
 * Some section titles can be renamed. The "Leisure" and the "Entertainment" section can be merged I think, even the "Notable buildings" be under them. Refer to the GAs for better ideas.


 * Consider checking them inlines, they seem excessive at some places, an overkill. A good guideline regarding inline citations: put them only for figures, big claims and at the end of each paragraph. Many piped links here are a bit...unnecessary. According to manner of style for links, we follow "the principle of least surprise". For example, see this edit I made.
 * The list of notable residents seems to be swelling, as I mentioned above it needs to be a separated article. Even needs refs, see WP:NLIST.
 * "Sister towns" needs citations too.

Final -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

When these have been answered, you can ask me again and I'll try to write some more suggestions. Also you can post this at the WP:GOCE for it to get copy-edited by a guild member.

Comments by Keith D Just a couple of minor points on references section Keith D (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Harvard style links, such as "Leleux (1984)" do not appear to have the full details given where the link can go to.
 * I would standardise in the date format usage in the references section, either day first or ISO format rather than the mixture that is currently used.