Wikipedia:Peer review/Boston Whaler/archive1

Boston Whaler

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I added the entire History of the Design section to the article and I want to get any advice on any changes that I should make and what else I should add to the article. My longterm goal with this article is to get it to Good Article and if possible Featured Article status. Please help me achieve this by sending in any advice that you think will help make this article better.

Thanks, Haydenowensrulz

Brianboulton comments: This request for a peer review is rather premature. Please note that, as per WP:Peer Review, this process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate". I see that the nominator has done some recent work, but at present the article still looks to be in its earliest stages of development with much still to do; there is a citation tag in place dated March 2009. Some of the principal issues to be resolved are:-

• The article requires a lead section, which should provide a concise summary of the main article's content. See WP:LEAD for guidance on lead (otherwise known as "lede") sections.
• Sources: the article is heavily dependent on [this source. Why should this be considered a high-quality reliable source, particularly as it carries this disclaimer: "This information is believed to be accurate but there is no guarantee. We do our best!"
• Another of your sources, http://bostonwhalerforum.com/forum.php, produces te message: "Sorry. The administrator has banned your IP address. To contact the administrator click here".
• Citations need to be properly formated. Consult WP:Cite for information about how to do this
• The article is entirely dependent on online sources, which may be the most convenient but which are not necessarily the most reliable or comprehensive. What steps have you taken to research print sources?
• The prose contains a number of fairly basic errors. I haven't been right through, but I found these in the History section:-

• "Fisher graduated Harvard University ..." → "Fisher graduated from Harvard University..."
• "Richard Fishers friend" → "Richard Fisher's friend"
• "dingy" → "dinghy"
• Grammar: "Fisher was very pleased with this new building materal that he showed it to Ray Hunt..."
• "1920’s" → "1920s"
• "When the boat had a heavy load and was not planning..." Are you sure you mean "planning"?
• You should not use abbreviations such as "prop" in an encyclopedia article.
• As a general point, much of the prose is repetitive and needs to be edited into a much tighter form. There are far too many verbatim quotes which you need to paraphrase, otherwise the tone comes across as informal and unencyclopaedic.

• Sections should be written in prose, not bullet points

In short, the article needs top-to-bottom overhaul, and should not be resubmitted for further review until some considerable further work has taken place. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)