Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia/archive4

Virginia

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Since is only thorough peer review in April, Virginia has twice been turned down for Featured Article status. The criticisms focused largely on the quality of the sources. If you can help identify any problematic sources that would be appreciated. Others have criticized the prose, citing comma usage. My other reason for requesting a peer review is for help determining if it is too long (at 123k), and if so, where to branch off the article, which is now longer then New York City but slightly shorter than Jesus. Thanks! --Patrick «» 17:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FAC has gotten more stringent recently, especially about sources. I would treat the failed FACs as two very detailed peer reviews and look at all the points raised and try to address them. The two major concerns are sources and language. I would get book or journal (print) sources for as many things as possible - for example History, but also things like Geology. Even sections with historic information like the Politics and Goivernment section certainly have book sources that could be cited.
 * The prose is still a bit choppy - I would ask for help with a copyedit. The bottom section at WP:PRV lists people willing to do this.
 * The lead is too short for an article of this length - see WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Some things seem a bit oddly placed, for example Coal supplies half of the state's electricity, with another third from two nuclear power plants.[27] does not really seem to belong in the Climate section.
 * A few places need refs, for example The Chesapeake Bay, while not a national park, is protected by both state and federal legislation, and the jointly run Chesapeake Bay Program which conducts restoration on the bay and its watershed. The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is protected by both Virginia and North Carolina. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * I would think the article should be a general overview of the commonwealth and talk about the most common things - not sure what prickly pear has to do with the most common plants. I think this is where it could be pared a bit.