| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it has been expanded and restructured ready to be sent for GAN. The editors would like feedback from a "fresh pair of eyes" on any further improvements that are needed, please.
Thanks, Harkey (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is generally well-written and certainly broad in coverage, nicely illustrated, and stable. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.
Lead
- Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, it should probably include at least a mention of renewable energy, sports, education, and other topics to which whole sections are devoted in the main text.
Arrangement of sections
- Would it be logical to move "Administrative history" down and to combine it with "Governance"?
- Would it make sense to move most of the geology information in the "History" section to the "Geology" subsection of the "Geography" section?
Abbreviations
- "despite producing the best set of GCSE" - This and any like this should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, thus: General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).
Metric conversions
- In the financial year 2004/05 210,112 tonnes of municipal waste was collected by East Riding and 154,723 tonnes by Hull." Generally, Wikipedia articles express quantities like these as both imperial and metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions; e.g., 210,112 tonnes (206,794 long tons). The tonnes and long tons are similar but not identical.
Sourcing
- Some of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced even though they contain information that is not common knowledge. The entire "Media" section is an example. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph as well as every direct quote, set of statistics, or claim that might reasonably be questioned. The entire "Climate" section is another example.
Images
- The images need alt text for readers who can't see them. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it.
External links
- The link to "Photographs of modern and historic features... " is dead.
References
- Rather than listing an url as a publisher, the publisher should be listed by name. Citation 64, for example, should list Yorkshire Water as the publisher. It's also customary to include the date of publication, if known. In this case, it's 2008, according to the copyright notice at the bottom of the web page. Citations to internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if all of these can be found. To take another example, the Driffield Online pages all have the same author, Stephen Harrison, and the same publication date, 2000. That information should be included in the citations.
- What makes Driffield Online a reliable source? What makes Wilgilsland (citation 21) a reliable source? Personal web pages and other self-published sources usually do not qualify as reliable. WP:RS has details.
I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)