History of Hobart edit
- 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 December 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have expanded it greatly recently. I think maybe it still has a bit of tidying to do, but having spent a lot of time writing, I think it would be useful to get someone else's opinion to get impartial advice as to what needs to be done to get the article to GA or Featured status.
Thanks, Robert Fleming (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Let me start by saying, wow! You've done a massive amount of work on this article, and it already compares favorably to articles such as History of London and History of Paris. Because you've done so much work to it, I'll have to spend more time studying it, but there are a few things that jump out at me after a cursory glance: 1.) Though there are a good number of sources, given the length of the article there needs to be quite a bit more. The "Late 20th century" section, for instance, is almost completely unsourced. 2.) The lead is incredibly long; it definitely needs to be shortened. 3.) In fact, the article may necessitate the creation of subpages; again, I haven't given the article a thorough read, but it is over 100k. 4.) The sections themselves are very long, and subsections would increase organization and make the article much more readable. 5.) Some minor copy editing is needed (20th century -> twentieth century, unlink unnecessarily linked dates, that sort of thing). I'll do some minor work on the article myself over the next couple of days and report back here if I find anything major that needs to be addressed. Cheers, faithless (speak) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)