Wikipedia:Peer review/United States/archive4

United States
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is a very high volume article that is close to FA, please be as thorough as possible.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Kumioko First I want to say thanks for submitting this. I agree its very important both to the project and because its extremely high hit amount. Although it is currently an A class article, IMO it needs quite a bit of work and probably isn't A class quality but its all fixable and this is a good start. Here are some of my observations so far and I will read through in more detail in the next couple days. I hope you don't mind but as I read through I am going to fix some obvious small things.
 * 1) The lede is a bit too long and should be trimmed
 * 2) The lede should not contain any inline citations. Inline citations should be in the article body that the lede summerizes
 * 3) There are a few places that appear to be missing inline citations
 * 4) I think we should update the numbers mentioned for the population statistics to reflect the new 2010 census
 * 5) A few of the references appear to be dead links. See here
 * 6) IMO we have a few too many pictures. I think if we try and limit to 1 or 2 pictures in each section, that represent that section, that would be best. There are currently 5 different maps of the US being used in different ways and I think is too many of the same thing.
 * 7) The template in the demographics section needs to be updated with the new 2010 census results and contains a dead link
 * 8) IMO the Culture section should come after the history section and before the Government and political sections
 * 9) I think we should combine the information found in the government/election subsection regarding politics and elections and move it to the Political divisions section.
 * 10) I ran it through AWB and didn't find anything.
 * 11) I ran it through the peer reviewer and nothing came up
 * 12) There are no Disambiguous links
 * 13) The article size is 169 KB so its extremely big. Eliminating some uneeded images will help but we might need to do some trimming of content as well.
 * 14) The template include size has been exceeded so some templates are not being displayed.
 * 15) I think we should move some of the see also's to the see also section and or incorporate the "Main article" links that appear in many of the sections into links within the sections somehow. There are so many its very distracting from the content of the article IMO.
 * 16) I also think the article is a see of blue links with many things being links 3 or more times, sometimes in the same sections. --Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made some changes but there are a lot left to be made before this article is FA quality IMO.
 * 6) I took out some of the images and moved some others around to display a little better and not have so many on the right. We may need to drop a couple more still but its a bit batter now.
 * 15)I trimmed out some of the hat notes. There is no need to add hatnotes if the link already appears in the section. Plus eliminating some of the hatnotes will help fix the template error and reduce the page render size.
 * 16) I took out some of the common links for things like apple pie and baseball that nearly anyone in the world would know but they were restored. I know that it is disappointing to not link to everything but there are several reasons why we don't need to link to every conceivable article.
 * The article page size is huge and we need to trim it down. Quite a bit actually.
 * There are so many templates on the article that it is not rendering correctly and exceeds the maximum number of templates allowd on an article.
 * The sea of blue links to articles that have a limited relationship to the topic are distracting and take away from the links that are meaningful.
 * Also here are some additional things that I think need to be addressed.
 * Some of the sentences are choppy and need to be cleaned up
 * We need to do a thourough copyedit and fix all the prose, grammer and punctuation issues.
 * IMO some of the information is a bit out of sequence and should be restructured to be a little more clear to the reader. For example IMO Culture should come after History and before the government section.
 * I recommend we add the Measurement sysems to the Science and technology section
 * I recommend combining the Parties, ideology, and politics subsection of Govnerment and elections with Political divisions section and then rename the Govnerment and elections section to just Govnerment.
 * I recommend adding the Language, Education and religion sections under Culture.
 * IMO the History section is too long and too comprehensive for a general article about the US. I recommend we trim out some of the content of the us History section from this article and add it to the History of the United States article.
 * I recommend separating the Foreign relations and military into 2 different sections. These really don't belong together IMO.--Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)