Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Vesuvius/archive1

Mount Vesuvius

During article assessment Violetriga rated this 8/10 (and if I had rated it in time, I would've given it about the same). It is comprehensive, has good pictures and (forgetting the current reference problem) it fulfills all FA requirements, so I believe it has a fair chance at getting featured in the near future. Apart from separating external links from references and using inline citation, what else can be done to improve this to featured status? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes overall it's a pretty good article. The writing seems a little awkward in a few places and could use some extra polishing up. The bulleted list of eruptions in the "Before AD 79" section should converted into a table form. The one picture I'd like to see added is an overhead (or satellite) shot to give the big picture.[1][2][3]... (I know the coordinate link takes you to a map site. But still an artfully chosen overhead image would help.) A section covering media appearance of the mountain (books, movies, &c.) would be welcome as well, if there were, say, more than two such. Thank you! :) — RJH 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas. Any further ideas are welcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I think polishing is required - many sections are rather short, there are capitalised headings which don't conform to the MoS, and things like that. I think the article is not particularly scholarly at the moment - no references cited from journal articles or other academic sources. And the external links section is unnecessarily huge at the moment. But it's a solid article on a topic which is ideal for bringing up to featured standards. I have been planning to work on this article for a while, as Vesuvius is a Decade Volcano and thus included in Wikipedia:WikiReader/Decade Volcanoes which I created. I should be able to find time in the next week or so to give it a thorough editing which I hope will improve it a lot. Worldtraveller 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check up on the sources themselves yet, but a lot of those external links are linked to as sources within the text and the Osservatorio Vesuvio local national park authorities and eyewitness accounts are all good sources IMO, even if not literally scientific. I'll contact you, so we don't do duplicate work. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]