This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this article is great and wondered if anyone agrees with me. It gives all the relevant facts, and anybody who is not familiar with the subject can get all the information they need from the article. I think it could also be considered for FA.
Thanks,
Spiby (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from User:GeeJo
- The lead could do with an expansion. It should discuss in brief the major points from each of the article's sections. See WP:LEAD for more advice on this.
- Paperless Geocaching has no references at all, and many of the other sections could do with having their points backed up by citations.
- Try to see about getting rid of the {{Globalize}} tag on the Websites section
- The Variations section needs references to back up the notability of each of the mentioned versions. I can't tell at a glance which are widely used and which have just been made up one day.
- Image captions could be more informative. Links are well and good, but you could do with one or two words describing what a travel bug is (And I'd think about making that particular link a redirect :) ).
- The article has quite an extensive See Also section, with some rather dubious inclusions. Try to work more of them into the prose of the article and get rid of the ones that aren't really necessary.
- You could do with bringing up a few mentions of the activity by mainstream media (if there've been any), as it currently reads as if no-one but those taking part has heard of the activity.
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments from WhatamIdoing: As a person who's never been involved in geocaching, my overall impression is that this article has a friendly, accessible feel with enough information about the subject to make me feel like I understand it. The first part of the article is great; the later parts occasionally seem to deteriorate into a list of fairly trivial decisions by individual organizations.
- The long list of variations might be slightly easier to read if the names of the "games" were italicized.
- I am not convinced that the "Websites for geocaching" section is necessary or even appropriate. The current policies at various websites seems more like advertising for potential participants than like an encyclopedia article. I would delete this section, or shorten it dramatically. Wikipedia is not an advertising opportunity for clubs and websites.
- The 'See also' section shouldn't include anything that's already linked in the main article. The only purpose of a 'See also' section is to have a place to list stuff which might be relevant, but you haven't yet figured out how to include directly in the article.
- This article includes too many external links. Many sites are linked twice: once in the article and again in the external links section. Linking to many websites in the text of an article is undesirable. Please review the links according to the official external links policy. You may want to create a dmoz/open directory page and link to that under the external links section. (The links in the text should probably be either turned into references where appropriate, or just deleted.)
Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)