Wikipedia:Peer review/Meads/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it currently rated as Start Class. A lot of work has since been done.

Thanks, Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good stuff, but it needs to be more standardized. Try to find other FAs on areas of towns and/or towns of similar size and find the subsections that are included. Also look at the Wikiproject and other guidelines for what articles about city and other administrative divisions should cover. It feels like it is missing stuff. I can see an argument for not duplicating everything that the Eastbourne article would have, but there at least needs to be enough context to let the reader know what is going on. Specifically for Meads, it needs as much of the broad information any other human geographical article should have such as demographics, etc. 2) Needs more context in general. The Boudaries/Councilors section is a good start at describing the governance of the area, but not having the background in UK local politics I had no idea what was going on in the Councilors section. Give more background on what a Councilor is, how the local government works and what roles they have relative to the larger government bodies. 3) The history section is too long. Per WP:SS articles should allocate appropriate amounts of space to each subtopic and no one subtopic should dominate an article. They should be balanced with the most important facets of a topic getting the most space and the lesser facets getting less. But no topic can justify that much space. That's all for now, keep up the good work and good luck. - Taxman Talk 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comment A model FA article (or two) is helpful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several English settlement FAs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography#Featured_articles that would be good model articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

edit

Thank you to everyone who has already commented ... and to anyone else who will be doing so. It's kind of you to read through the article and I will be taking on board the points which you make.Mikeo1938 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]