Wikipedia:Peer review/Wilson, Arkansas/archive1

Wilson, Arkansas
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I recently overhauled this page and would like to know where to go next. I sincerely appreciate your time and comments.

Thanks, Brandonrush (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. It's a good start, and the illustrations are fetching. The potential is here for an article of at least GA quality. I have several suggestions for further improvement.


 * Possibilities for expansion include material about climate, geology, education, and government. You can get other ideas by visiting WP:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline.


 * It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar materials. You'll find a list of the featured articles about towns and cities at WP:FA. A featured article about a town of similar size to Wilson is Stephens City, Virginia.


 * The history section should include the history of the area before 1886, if you can find sources. Who lived here before the town existed? Who lived here before European explorers visited Arkansas? Probably something about the Nodena site belongs here, but there must be more to say than what appears in the "Tourism" subsection.


 * Generally, every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph needs an inline citation to a reliable source. If one source supports all the claims in a paragraph, the citation should go at the end of the paragraph. In the existing article, the first paragraph of the "Geography" section includes unsourced claims. The first paragraph of the "Economy" section lacks a source or sources.


 * Avoid overlinking. Generally, it's sufficient to link special terms no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text. For example, "cotton" should not be linked three times in the "Economy" section, and common words like "museum", "village", and "religion" should not be linked at all. WP:OVERLINK has details.


 * Rather than using tiny superscripts and abbreviating all of the units, try this: 2.8 km2. I used the convert template for these, but you can do them by hand if you prefer. The convention in Wikipedia articles is to spell out the primary units and to abbreviate the secondary ones (metric in this case). The convert template does this automatically. A hyphen can be added to the template with the |adj=on parameter. It's quite a versatile template that can do lots of other things like convert temperatures.


 * Use consistent date formatting throughout the "Reference" section.


 * The dab-checker tool at the top of this review page finds two dabs, here.


 * When you have finished making other changes and feel that the article is nearly complete, you should revise the lead to make sure that it summarizes the entire article. My rule of thumb for inclusion is to try to at least mention each of the main text sections in some way. WP:LEAD has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)