Wikipedia:Peer review/Buffalo, New York/archive2

Buffalo, New York 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'd like tips on how to get the article to GA status and also tips on improving sources/current article references.

Thanks, Dekema2 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try my hand at this peer review even though municipalities are not my thing. I lived in Western New York most of my life from 1969 through 1990. Fredonia, NY from 69-73, Orchard Park, NY from 73-75, Amherst, NY (Snyder, NY) from 75-83 and off and on in Buffalo proper from 87-90. My parents lived there until 2004 when my mother sold the house we grew up in (where she lived from 75-04) the year after my father passed. My mom spent summers there until 2007. I hope this is a bit of a trip down memory lane.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I see from PR1 that 7 years ago the other Lake Erie cities of Detroit, Cleveland and Erie, Pennsylvania were FAs in July 2007 (Detroit is no longer) and that nearby Hamilton, Ontario was and is an FA. I may compare this to the 3 FAs, but I will mostly just run through the article looking with my own sensibilities.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. nice to see that 2 of my images are still in the article after all these years.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time so far, and I'm interested in hear suggestions on what can be fixed and improved. Your history in the area should undoubtedly help while I know you do have a track record of improving articles. While I've spent all of my pre-college life in the area, now that I'm a semi-ex Buffalonian, I'll do my best to listen and make improvements. --Dekema2 (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I see the tags at the top of the article. I will want at least one WP:IC from a WP:RS for every paragraph. If we can't provide any for a paragraph that content will have to be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I do that, I'll mark this as done. --Dekema2 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the best source reviewer, but hopefully we can make some improvements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD

I like the way the LEAD reads, but I don't think it actually summarized the article. Generally, I like to see a summary of each section in the LEAD. However, we want to keep this to 3000-3200 characters of readable prose. The lead is currently 2224 characters of readable prose so we have some room to play with. We can revisit this once I have run through the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

On quick glance, I am troubled by the fact that the first paragraph of the main body has no WP:IC(s) from WP:RS. Please cite this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then merge or expand the stubby paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see very quickly that there is going to be a lot of content that should be tagged with {{fact}}. Do you want me to do this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can go right ahead so when I add new references, I'll be able to quickly go back and change to them. --Dekema2 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During the Talk:Buffalo, New York/GA1, I mentioned that the article had 46 entire paragraphs without ICs. I should not have to go through and point them out now 5 weeks later. You should have attempted to fix this before even coming to WP:PR. However, I will tag up the article as I review it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that, I could've added just some before opening this up. However, these {{fact}} tags will help because I might've overlooked them regardless. This week I will find time to look for WP:RS around the web. --Dekema2 (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started adding references, do you have an idea offhand if they are reliable? That's one issue I have with them. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to develop an understanding of WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done The History section has had new citations added.--Dekema2 (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add citations to any paragraph that has no citations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: how are links that use the Wayback machine typically looked at as far as WP:RS is concerned? --Dekema2 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is a WP:RS, it does not matter whether you can see the original or an archive of the original.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]