Wikipedia:Peer review/Water Newton Treasure/archive1

Water Newton Treasure
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review after adding x-refs to the BM on-line collections record and further sourcing and correction. As the article is listed as high-importance for the BM, a list of suggested improvements could help drive improvements.

A draft check-list is available for BM related articles at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM which may be useful.

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: At present there are only 200 words of text and no structure to the article. It needs some comprehensive development before it qualifies for peer review. It looks promising, with nice images, but there's a lot of work to do yet. I suggest withdraw the PR request for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As noted above, this is a good start, but a lot more work is need before it can be considered for something like Good Article. 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. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs a lead section and subsections - see WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Article needs more references, for example the second and third paragraphs have no refs currently. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * The article could be expanded - what sort of items were discovered (only a few of the 27 are shown or mentioned)? What is the culture that produced the objects? What do the objects tell us about the culture? Who found the hoard? How was it recovered, cleaned, restored? How did the British Museum acquire the hoard? That sort of thing.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is a WP:FA on an archological find that may be a good model is Vasa (ship)
 * There's really not much point in doing a peer review for a stub, especially when someone (me, at the BM day) has already committed to improving it. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)