Wikipedia:Peer review/Pichilemu/archive2
Pichilemu[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want that this article become a Good article.
Thanks, MisterWiki talk contribs 14:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: While this has improved since my last peer review of it, there is still a lot of work needed to get it up to standards where it can pass WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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. However the Zona Típica is only in the lead and a reference and is not expalined in the rest of the article (as an example)
- The current lead seems too short and lacks detail as a summary fo the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- The disambiguation links finder tool (top right corner) finds six dabs that all need to be fixed
- I do not read Spanish so I am not able to judge, but make sure all sources used are reliable. This http://www.elrancahuaso.cl/admin/render/noticia/7987 seems to be a blog, for example. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources uinless the person writing them is a recognized expert.
- Spell out numbers under ten per the WP:MOS
- Measurements should be given in both metric and English units, the {{convert}} template is useful for doing this easily
- The language in the article is in serious need of a copyedit to clean things up - my guess is that at least some of the authors are not writing in their native language. For example the dock burnt, it was not "fired": Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired.[14]
- Make sure to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
- For example the history section gives very few years, so it is hard to tell when the things described happened. The Ortuzar family section is especially unclear as to time.
- Or the first sentence tells the reader the name is derived from Mapudungún but no explanation of this is given (who speaks Mapudungún? Do they still speak it in Pichilemu?)
- Is it Agustin Ross (section header) or Agustin Ross Edwards? WHen was he born and when did he die?
- Watch needless repetition - the Population history section repeats the 2002 population of 12,392 THREE times (table, end of first paragraph, beginning of next paragraph about Census and polls.
- More needless repetition - the Ross Casino is mentioned in the History section, then in the National Monuments (in two places - its own section and with the hotel), then in Important Places, then as a see also. See also is usually for links not used elsewhere in the article.
- Images need alt text - see WP:ALT Licenses on many images are also doubtful - if the date is not known, how can you be sure it is PD-old?
- I also think the article would benefit from removing some of the pictures - Magdalena Petit is not even mentioned in the article except for the image caption. Why should her photo be included? If she is important, put her in the article. Or what are "Cáhuil salines"? Only mentioned in the image caption again (salt evaporation pools?)
- There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - to improve article flow these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
- Some places need more refs - for example none of the schools are cited - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
- Are there no books on Pichilemu? Every source cited seems to be web based.
- A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Lock Haven, Pennsylvania is an article on a small city that just became an FA last week and may be a useufl model. More FAs on cities are at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)