Wikipedia:Peer review/Oldham Riots/archive1

Oldham Riots edit

I'm hoping that this article will reach Wikipedia:Good articles criteria some day soon. I'm from the Oldham area, and written the bulk of the text personally (although tried to source most content), but I'm concerned this may mean the article could therefore be POV and in my own style of writing.

For these reasons, in addition to the controvertial nature of the article, I'm requesting a peer review in an attempt to:

Bring the article inline with NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Reach Wikipedia:Good articles.

Any suggestions would be warmly welcomed. Jhamez 84 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy _t 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be improved by reducing links to solitary years. A monobook tool allows this to be done with one click on a 'dates' tab in edit mode. You can then accept or reject the changes offered and/or do more editing before pressing 'Save'. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. Hope that helps. bobblewik 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the majority of the automated suggestions (some I need to become more familliar with the formatting), and streamlined the use of dates using the monobook tool. Any suggestions in terms of NPOV? Jhamez 84 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:
- At a single paragraph, the lead is too short, see WP:LEAD. Some content from the Riots subsection could be used for this.
- There are many short paragraphs consisting of one or two sentences. Try to merge some of these to improve the flow. Converting the bulleted lists to prose would also improve the way the artlicle flows.
- Some of the existing references may be heavily biased (e.g. Socialist Worker). From a cursory search, Google Scholar may help with providing non-partisan academic sources of information on the topic. Hope this helps. Oldelpaso 12:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks! I had no idea that the Google Scholar engine even existed! It's a fantastic tool, and will certainly be helpful for the article. Additionally, I shortened the lead as per recommendations, but it seems I've gone too far the other way. I'll try to fix this asap. Thanks again, Jhamez84 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]