Wikipedia:Peer review/Runcorn/archive1
This has been accepted as a GA and I am interested to learn what needs to be done to develop it into a FA. Peter I. Vardy 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- First thing that jumped out at me was the use of unparished area in the lead, that needs some context for the unaware reader to know what that is talking about. Seems a good place to explain why that population figure is different from the population figure in the infobox. 2) Eliminate one and two sentence paragraphs. They break up the flow of the text and should either be expanded into full paragraphs of their own, merged with related material, or removed. The article generally seems to cover the right topics, and is overall well done. Keep up the good work. - Taxman Talk 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments on the Runcorn article. I've re-written the lead to get rid of the confusion and had a go at reducing the number of sub-sections and short paragraphs. I've also taken note of the automated peer review suggestions and have in particular removed a lot of 'redundant' words and phrases. How's it looking now? Any more advice or suggestions? Is it getting anywhere near FA quality? Best wishes. Peter I. Vardy 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not so far from FAC readiness. The second paragraph of the lead needs expansion and the lead needs to give a useful summary of the entire article. Currently I only get a good idea of the town's location and history, but not much about what it's like today. It sounds like a typical small English town to my uninitiated self, but is it, or is it rather unusual? Simply tell us that if you can find a good source for it. 2) The climate paragraph needs a few hard numbers, such as what is the average temperature, and what is the approximate range. Average rainfall and frost and snow days wouldn't be bad. 3) We need some more context on what a unitary authority is and the situation with the borough of Halton. What type of administrative district are those? That may help resolve the issue with the Demographics. 4) In the Demographics section you either need to provide a lot of context about why this town of 60k people doesn't have any demographics info or provide us a summary of the borough's numbers and whether they are considered to be reasonable for Runcom. What do the sources say? 5) The History section is too long, as well as the Communal facilities and Religion sections. Articles should be well balanced in the amount of space they allocate to each subtopic in proportion to the importance of those topics to the overall subject. After working on these, let me know if you need more (just ask me to peek back here), and I'll see if I think it needs anything else or if it's ready for FAC. - Taxman Talk 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a go, following your advice. 1) I've expanded the second paragraph of the lead and extended the following paragraphs to try to give a better summary. My difficulty is that I live in the town, so I know what it's like, but if I say it as I see it, that will not be NPOV. I am not aware of any sources which might give a better feel about the town and, were there any, the NPOV problem might still be there. 2) Hard numbers added to the climate paragraph. 3&4) Not easy. I have extended the demographics section giving the reason for their not being separate statistics for Runcorn and Widnes. I have not gone into great detail about what a unitary authority is because I presume that is what the internal links are for. I do not know of any source which would say that the features are similar for the two towns - except for my own personal knowledge! Do you think this will be adequate or is there a better way of dealing with it? 5) History, Communal facilities and Religion sections all shortened. Peter I. Vardy 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's pretty good, and once you're back from holiday, I'm confident you'll be able to handle any suggestions brought up in FAC. That's enough context for Unitary authority I'd think, just enough to get the basic idea. Perhaps that could go back in the lead to explain how the city is governed, but only if you think it's important enough. The lead should contain a summary of only the most important items of course. The history is still a little long given the size of the article and town and it's importance to the overall topic. Move further details to a history of Runcorn article if you'd like to preserve them all. - Taxman Talk 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've had a go, following your advice. 1) I've expanded the second paragraph of the lead and extended the following paragraphs to try to give a better summary. My difficulty is that I live in the town, so I know what it's like, but if I say it as I see it, that will not be NPOV. I am not aware of any sources which might give a better feel about the town and, were there any, the NPOV problem might still be there. 2) Hard numbers added to the climate paragraph. 3&4) Not easy. I have extended the demographics section giving the reason for their not being separate statistics for Runcorn and Widnes. I have not gone into great detail about what a unitary authority is because I presume that is what the internal links are for. I do not know of any source which would say that the features are similar for the two towns - except for my own personal knowledge! Do you think this will be adequate or is there a better way of dealing with it? 5) History, Communal facilities and Religion sections all shortened. Peter I. Vardy 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not so far from FAC readiness. The second paragraph of the lead needs expansion and the lead needs to give a useful summary of the entire article. Currently I only get a good idea of the town's location and history, but not much about what it's like today. It sounds like a typical small English town to my uninitiated self, but is it, or is it rather unusual? Simply tell us that if you can find a good source for it. 2) The climate paragraph needs a few hard numbers, such as what is the average temperature, and what is the approximate range. Average rainfall and frost and snow days wouldn't be bad. 3) We need some more context on what a unitary authority is and the situation with the borough of Halton. What type of administrative district are those? That may help resolve the issue with the Demographics. 4) In the Demographics section you either need to provide a lot of context about why this town of 60k people doesn't have any demographics info or provide us a summary of the borough's numbers and whether they are considered to be reasonable for Runcom. What do the sources say? 5) The History section is too long, as well as the Communal facilities and Religion sections. Articles should be well balanced in the amount of space they allocate to each subtopic in proportion to the importance of those topics to the overall subject. After working on these, let me know if you need more (just ask me to peek back here), and I'll see if I think it needs anything else or if it's ready for FAC. - Taxman Talk 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)