Wikipedia:Peer review/The Poconos/archive1

The Poconos
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to know what should and can be done to expand and improve the coverage of this topic on Wikipedia. Thanks, ScouterSites (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The Pocono Mountains are beautiful and interesting, and they deserve a good article. That said, peer review is meant for articles without major cleanup tags, and this one isn't far enough along for a complete peer review. The first thing that leaps out are the cleanup tags noting that the article does not meet WP:V because it lacks citations to reliable sources to support its claims. That's the first thing that needs fixing. Here are some other suggestions for improvement.


 * A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned. Claims for which no source can be found should be deleted. In addition, every paragraph except for the lead should be supported by at least one source.


 * The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention in the lead each of the main text sections. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you will have a good idea of how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.


 * It's often helpful to look at GA or FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar problems. Please see WP:FA. Mendip Hills might be a good working model.


 * Geology and history are two significant areas that are missing from the existing article.


 * Straight prose is usually preferable to lists. See WP:MOS.


 * Images should be made to fit inside one section and not overlap sections. They should not displace heads or edit buttons.


 * A geobox like the one used for Calapooya Mountains would probably enhance this article.


 * All of the entries in the Reference section are incomplete. For Internet sources, you should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. The "cite" family of templates can be helpful in arranging the citations. WP:CIT has details and samples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)