Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive1

United States
First May 2006 FAC nomination Second May 2006 nomination

It has been suggested that the United States article be peer reviewed. Please check the article for: Thank you.--Ryz05 t 21:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Spelling and grammar
 * Does general style/layout conform to Wikipedia standards?
 * Please check for 'neutral point of view'
 * Factual accuracies
 * Quality of references, including if more books should be used and whether any references should be replaced
 * Whether it should be expanded for comprehensiveness or reduced if it's too long
 * everything else not listed that could be used to improve the article


 * All of the above were already pointed out to you in the FAC nom, and you aggressively argued with all objections. Why do you think the PR process will be successful if you refuse to listen to suggestions for improving the article? Implement the suggestions already given in the FAC nom and then we have something to work with. Linking to the recent FAC nom(s) would be a good idea too. - Taxman Talk 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those issues were either addressed or should have been brought up to the discussion and debated there in the first place. The nomination was up for only five days before being put down. It was, overall, an unfair election. Anyways, many people called for a peer review. So here it is. If you have something to suggest, it'll be good to make a note in the Talk:United States/to do as well.--Ryz05 t 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't unfair, you just weren't willing to modify your approach to what is expected at FAC. In any case the article is improving which is the most important thing. The biggest problem is still the quality of the writing. There are large amounts of choppy and awkward prose. There are several very short paragraphs that add to the choppiness problem. I grant the overall writing of an article is not easy to fix, but it's just not close to FA quality writing yet. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article so citations in the lead should be kept to a minimum and instead the fact should be cited where it is covered later in the article. Also the citation nmubering is off starting in the lead, and goes off at least one more time after that. Lastly the whole beginning of the culture section is original research. The melting pot thing is commonly thrown out, but I doubt in any type of rigorous efforts. - Taxman Talk 22:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk not directly related to the article moved to the PR talk page - Taxman Talk 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The numbering is off for the citations because of the ref name attribute of the cite.php system . Thanks, AndyZ t 23:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there is a need for the largest cities table. An article on a country is supposed to be an overview of the country and I'm not sure a table of the largest cities in the country is one of the most important things that belongs in this article. It is more appropriate in the Demographics sub-article. Pepsidrinka 03:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and will remove the section unless anybody objects. Also, I suggest that Religion and Language be moved to the Demographics section, after reading the article Demographics. AndyZ t 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the largest cities table, there was a discussion (and a vote) on it Talk:United_States/Archive_15. However, the final decision was to keep. I don't really mind it removed or kept either way, but I just want you to know that if it's removed, other people might add it back later on, unless there's a clear concensus to omit that sub-section. If Religion and Language sub-sections are moved to demographics, then they must be moved for the China article, too. After they are moved, the Culture section would only have one sub-section, which should not stand alone. Therefore, that Sports sub-section would have to be changed to a full section.--Ryz05 t 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for showing me that discussion; I wasn't aware of that before. Perhaps we could just move Sports directly into Culture, like is done in Australia, India, etc.? AndyZ t 01:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We could just move Sports directly into Culture, but that will be a lot of summarizing and omissions. People will argue against such a move if the Culture section talks pretty much just about sports.--Ryz05 t 18:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Language and religion are clearly demographic items, just move the subheadings and they can easliy be merged into the demographics section - especially language which is a single paragraph anyway. Add some additional content to culture and some more H3s, the section is rather thin as is, my comments (and those of others) are in the FAC. Incidently I see not reason not to shift the sections in the China article, which is the only other article to include these sections under culture.--Peta 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I don't really have an opinion on whether to move the sports section to the culture section, the only way this article is going to get cut down to a more manageable size is with summarizing and omitting. Pepsidrinka 03:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have fixed some minor spelling mistakes throughout the article, I think the spelling is all OK now. — Wackymacs 10:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fixes. I have just ran the article in Microsoft Word and there seems to be no more typos.--Ryz05 t 20:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is coming along some things that still need adjustment --Peta 06:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Health is too long
 * What part of the health section don't you like and what should be left out? A picture might help make the section look a little shorter. --Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The largest cities table takes up way too much of the article and the data is not likely to be digested to the reader, a simple list might be a good addition in the geography section perhaps?
 * As with a previous discussion, it is impossible to take out the table of cities as people will just add it back in. Take a look at this poll: Talk:United_States/Archive_15, which shows a majority of the votes are in favor of including the table. --Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Foreign realtions contains to much historical information (for example there is very little relevance of who made alliance with who prior to the civil war)
 * That's just some historical fact on the early history of American foreign relations. Do you really think it should be taken out?--Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Culture (which is one of the things that makes a country unique) still has glaring omissions.
 * What are some of the "glaring" omissions? It can be expanded to cover some more things, but there's also a See also list at the bottom of that section for people who want to find out more.--Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There are too many references for obvious and easily verifiable things, like the US 2004 olympic medal tally and that Mormonism is popular in Utah.
 * I don't think "too many references" is a major problem. Some people might need a reference to those things, or otherwise they'll accuse the article of not having enough references. Even though the information might be obvious to people in the US, for people from other places like India, the same things might not be so obvious.--Ryz05 t 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There are still some dubious cites, like note 20 which is an opinon poll, not a conculsive statement on the coutries that the US sees as its most important allies. Prefferably such a statement would be backed up by a reference from the State Department if it is necessary at all.
 * Is note 20 the only problem you see with the references list?--Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) There are items in the references that cite a secondary source when the primary source is freely available like the cites from Factmonster and censusscope.
 * Maybe you can replace some secondary references with those of primary ones that you found.--Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Grammar is rough in places.
 * Exactly where? Maybe you can improve them?--Ryz05 t 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the major problems with the article is that the lead section does not sufficiently introduce the topic. The lead summarises the history section, but makes no mention of the strength of American economy, influence of the American military, America's supposed status as the "melting pot", the diversity of American geography, etc. Short of that, I have few significant problems with the article. One additional concern is the inclusion of many subsections under "Politics". While the military, foreign relations and human rights may relate to politics, they are not subsets of politics and should be treated as separate sections. — Cuivi é  nen  T, Wednesday, 17 May 2006 @ 17:34 UTC
 * Remember that the lead section is what draws the reader into reading the article, and I like to keep the introduction short and concise. There's no point to address things in the lead that are already mentioned in other sections, unless that something is crucial to the founding of the country or otherwise. Also, I disagree with your view of the sub-sections under Politics, which I firmly believe that they should be kept as sub-sections instead of becoming full-sections, since they are related to Politics as you said. Also, the PRC article has the same format. If you still disagree, you are welcome to suggest it in the discussion page. --Ryz05 t 18:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD and the common understanding developed on FAC over the years is that the lead should be a proper summary of a topic, summarizing all the most important facets of the rest of the article. It can be concise, but it needs to cover all the most important points. - Taxman Talk 11:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with the current lead? For a discussion of the introduction (lead), please refer to Talk:United States/Introduction and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Introduction. If you have anything to suggest, you are welcome to do so there.--Ryz05 t 15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How could I be based on my comment and the guidelines I've mentioned? It doesn't meet the guideline on lead sections, which is a FA criterion. Closer to what User:Cuivienen is referring to would be an improvement. I don't have time to go to every talk page, but the editors there can come here and to the previous FAC noms to see the advice of experienced FAC regulars. Clearly the decisions on the talk page haven't always been the right ones for this article. - Taxman Talk 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What are some of the things that should be added about the US in the lead? Do you think the mentioning of it being a superpower or hyperpower is enough? Or should it go into more details about how it is a superpower.--Ryz05 t 19:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)