| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently nominated the article for GA Class a couple of times but have failed. Since then, I have built everything up on the article and learned from the past mistakes. It has grown and gotten better since last time (including 40 references). This will be the last time I will nominate this article for anything - I just want to get a second opinion on it first.
Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by Dana boomer
First off, I took a look at the article history and I want to congratulate you on the great job you've done expanding the article over the past 15 or so months. From a one paragraph stub to this is impressive! Now, my comments:
More prose and less listy-ness and truncated thoughts is needed. For example, the Prehistory foundings section is a list that could easily be converted into prose, while "Bentewurda or Bintewurda (as it was known in c.1100)." (the first sentence of the Saxon times section) is not a complete sentence. There are several examples like this last sentence.- The Parish section contains a lot of really short subsections, making it very choppy and less flowing.
- There are a lot of "paragraphs" of just one sentence. Sometimes short paragraphs can be used to make a point, by pulling a piece of text out that you want to be particularly noticed, but for the most part paragraphs should be at least three sentences.
The Population figures section, as pure statistics, desperately needs references. Also, some prose explaining the tables would be helpful.The book(?) references are shortened to the point of being incomprehensible. For example, what the heck does "Cal. Pat. 1216–25. Unknown. pp. 329." mean?Web references should have the link piped through the title (so that when you click on the title it takes you to the website), and should also include publisher, accessdate and author when available.
I hope these comments help. The article isn't ready for GA status at this time, but with a bit more work on the above could probably make it. Please let me know if you have any questions about the above comments - I am watchlisting this page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)