Wikipedia:Peer review/Marysville, Washington/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it would be a good GA nominee after some improvements. I would like to know what kinds of improvements are needed to make this a GA.

Thanks! — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - while it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Here are some suggestions for improvement to potential GA level:

• A model article is always useful for ideas on structure, refs, style, etc. Seattle, Washington is a FA and Hillsboro, Oregon is a GA that may be useful as models.
• 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. Example the "Strawberry City".
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead needs to be expanded to perhaps three paragraphs. Please see WP:LEAD
• Biggest problem as I see it with this article right now is a lack of references. For example the whole first history section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
• Avoid external links right in the article (like Summer Jubilee). Add these as a reference instead.
• Next biggest problem is comprehensiveness - for example, look at History, did nothing happen from 1891 to 2008?
• The 2008 makeover section reads like a brochure and has way too much detail. This is worth a sentence or two, not its own section. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM
• Avoid short paragraphs (one or sentences) and short sections, as they break up the flow of the article. Combine these with others or expand them.
• Article has all sorts of typos and odd formatting and needs a copyedit for prose. The senior centre served formerly as a city hall, police station, jail, fire station, and library before becoming a senior center in 1997.
• Try to avoid needless repetition - senior center is repeted three times in two sentences.
• Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.
• Watch out for peacock language like "utopian" - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]