In this article, we are going to explore and analyze
Wikipedia:Peer review/Los Angeles, California/archive1 from different angles and perspectives.
Wikipedia:Peer review/Los Angeles, California/archive1 is a topic that has aroused great interest and debate in today's society, which motivates us to delve into its relevance and impact in various contexts. Through this analysis, we will seek to understand the importance of
Wikipedia:Peer review/Los Angeles, California/archive1 and how it impacts people's lives, culture and society in general. To do this, we will examine different opinions and arguments, with the aim of generating a complete and enriching overview of the topic. We hope this article serves as a starting point for deeper reflection and greater understanding of
Wikipedia:Peer review/Los Angeles, California/archive1.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article was demoted to B-class one month ago, and I need some feedback. All reviews provided will be channeled into the featured article drive for WikiProject Cities that I am planning.
Thanks, Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This article includes a great deal of interesting information but needs a lot of work. Here are a few basic suggestions for improvement.
- As others have noted, the citation problems need to be addressed. An article with clear WP:V problems is not good.
- The next thing that leaps out is the overlinking. I would suggest going through the whole article looking for common words such as "aviation", snow", "automobiles", and "inches" to unlink. The sea of blue is disturbing in places. For example, the "Landmarks" subsection includes only six words that are not wikilinked, and some of the landmarks are linked twice. I'd recommend looking for ways to distinguish between useful links and the set of all possible links. Please see WP:OVERLINK.
- Related to the overlinking is the reliance on long lists. Some of these lists are of questionable value and, when each item is linked, add to the sea of blue. For example, the two lists of LA-based companies in the "Economy" section wouldn't have to be long to be effective. Perhaps an overview paragraph supported by a few important examples would improve the readability of these list-dominated sections.
- I'd suggest looking at FA articles about cities to get ideas about how to improve specific sections. See New York City, Houston, and Detroit, for example.
- The lead should be a summary of the main text. It should include at least a mention of the content of the main sections. The existing lead ignores sections such as "Sports", "Education", "Media", "Government", and "Transportation".
These are only a few ideas, and a lot more could be said. If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dtbohrer
A quick comment for now:
- I think a sentence or two for each of "landmarks" explaining why they are important to L.A. would help.
I agree with Finetooth, using an FA city article as a model helps a lot. --D.B.talk•contribs 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)