Wikipedia:Peer review/Palm Island, Queensland/archive2

Palm Island, Queensland edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to start the process towards bringing it to up to Feature Article status. I am seeking some guidance on areas that will need significant attention for this to happen.

Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 04:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch, btw already very well aware that the history needs to be re-structured moved to it's own article and summarised. Wiki Townsvillia n 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thank you for your work on this interesting article, which has a long way to go before it is ready for WP:FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The Toolbox in the upper right corner allows one to check the article for disambiguation links - the tool finds five such links, which will need to be fixed.
The External links checker in the toolbox also finds many dead links that will need to be repaired or perhaps replaced.
The biggest issue I see with this article before it would stand a chance of passing FAC (or GAN) is a lack of references. There are 10 citation needed tags, and there are also many places that need refs. One example is the 1930 Palm Island Tragedy section, which has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Not all refs contain the needed information. FOr example, current ref 80 is just a bare url. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The MOS says not to use all capital letters in references, even if the original used them (in a title or headline)
The History section and the Notable events sections need to be merged (as almost everything in the latter is really history). I know you said this was something you were aware of - in general it is better to fix all known problems before PR so that reviewers can focus on other issues.
The lead needs to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but much of the history and notable events isn ot even mentioned in the lead now. Please see WP:LEAD
Per the MOS all metric units need ENglish equivalents too - the {{convert}} template does a good job of this
In a Geography article it is usual to include a Geology section - how did the island form?
In addition to History, I would look carefully at the organization of the article overall - there are multiple sections on crime that should probably all be combined into one to avoid needless repetition, for example.
Another area that will need work before FAC is prose - one FA criterion that is difficult for most articles to meet is a professional level of English. One thing I noticed is a large number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which break up the flow of the article and make it choppy. These should be combined with others in most cases or perhaps expanded.
Please also make sure that the section headers meet WP:HEAD
There are aother issues, but these need to be dealt with first. A model article is good for ideas and examples to follow - there are many Geography articles that are FA level that might be useful models. Please see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details

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 _><>°^° 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]