Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles T. Hinde/archive1

Charles T. Hinde

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 to improve the quality and try to reach "good article" status.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Lead is a little brief. See WP:LEAD for what is expected as a summary of the whole article.
Christ Episcopal Church is a dab link.
"During Captain Hinde's life..." just refer to him as Hinde, rather than Captain Hinde...
"life Hinde generously donated a large portion " reduce the POV, i.e. delete "generously".
"Hinde was one of seven children" perhaps "He was..." as there's no doubt who you're talking about.
"Eventually, Hinde grew up and ..." well yes, that's what we do if we continue to live, we grow up...
"in Mount Carmel, Illinois. His father founded the town in 1815. " merge, so ".. Illinois, which his father had founded in 1815."
Looks like you need a good copyedit, perhaps put in a request at WP:LOCE?
" Hinde attended Indiana Asbury University at Greencastle, Indiana for" don't think you really need ", Indiana" here.
"Even though these were low paying jobs Captain Hinde was able to support himself because he had inherited large land holdings from his father Thomas S. Hinde.[3]" again, think about how you refer to the characters in this article. Be consistent and clear.
Image captions that don't form full sentences don't need a period, e.g. the daguerrotype one.
Per WP:HEAD, "The Coronado Beach Company" should just be "Coronado Beach Company"
In References, newspapers such as The San Diego Union should be in italics.
What makes ref 18 a reliable source?
Not to mention it's poorly formatted.
Ref 12 and 14 are the same, so use a ref name to repeat them in the article without having multiple instances in the refs section.
Similar for refs 22 and 23.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I tried to make most of the corrections you suggested. Lawman4312 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all these concerns are now resolved, except for the sketchy citation, currently #17. -- Dianna (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]