Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Manzanar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Manzanar

Manzanar

edit

Greetings...Manzanar recently passed GA review. Although there has been what may appear to be a mini-edit war since then, I think we've settled our differences and agreed upon terminology that should be used.

As such...what do you all think needs to be done for this article to reach FA status? Any suggestions would be most appreciated. Gmatsuda 08:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From DrKiernan

edit
  • There's no need to include "Manzanar" in the sub-headings; and the additional reading section should be after the references and above the external links. DrKiernan 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)   Done Gmatsuda 18:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
I didn't see any references/footnotes that didn't follow this. Then again, perhaps I missed something. Gmatsuda 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DrKiernan 10:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at the article. Gmatsuda 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK...more peer reviewers, please!! :-) Gmatsuda 06:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From SandyGeorgia

edit
  • The article has jumps to external websites; Wiki is not a blog, a webhost, or MySpace. External content belongs either in External links, as a reference, or in a Wikified article if the subject is notable.
The article has just two jumps to external web sites, one to the official web site of the Manzanar National Historic Site and the other to the Manzanar Committee web site. I think the article text shows why these jumps are pertinent to the article and appropriate for inclusion. Could you elaborate on your objection to including them? Thanks. Gmatsuda 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they shouldn't be included; there shouldn't be external jumps in the article. If you need those sites, they would either be as references or External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK...so they just shouldn't be in the prose. I get it. :-) Gmatsuda 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a massive External link farm that should be radically reduced according to WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT.
I removed a few of them that weren't as important as the rest, but the remaining links offer important information, about all of the "eras" of Manzanar's history, not just the wartime period, and in trying to offer resources covering that entire spectrum, including material that isn't covered in the article, I hesitate to remove more of them. Can the article be promoted without paring the EL list down further? Gmatsuda 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If links include information because it's needed yet not included in the article, then the article fails 1b, comprehensive. A well-written article covers all important aspects of the topic, minimizing the need for External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading up on what the phrase link farm actually means, I don't see this as meeting the criteria. A link farm is a group of web sites that all hyperlink to every other page in the group. --Epeefleche 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EL...the ELs in this article are those that actually do provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. In fact, the ELs appear to meet the requirements spelled out in WP:EL. In any case, if they MUST be pared down for the article to be promoted, I guess we can do that. Gmatsuda 05:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References/footnotes are not fully and correctly formatted (see WP:CITE/ES). All sources should have a publisher, all websources need a last access date, author and publication date should be listed when available, and book sources need page nos. I identified the PDFs.   Done Gmatsuda 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:DASH and fix throughout; I did a sample edit. Spaced emdashes aren't used on Wiki (or just about any other manual of style) and endashes are used to separate date and page ranges.   Done Gmatsuda 02:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: during GA review, a reviewer specified that for citations where dates were not available, we needed to indicate that, so now I'm getting conficting information. Gmatsuda 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why it's GA and not FA :-) Anyone can promote a GA; FA undergoes scrutiny by a large number of experienced editors. Did this "GA person" give you any Wiki guidelines page for that info? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked your GAReviews and didn't see that anywhere. By the way, those green marks really clutter a review. Of course,you're free to ignore any of the items I mentioned. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was here...User:IvoShandor/Manzanar_GA_review. But no matter now...it's fixed. :-) Gmatsuda 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read that, and I didn't see IvoShandor anywhere saying to add "date not available"; s/he said, "The references (footnotes) need tighter formatting, it is pretty inconsistent. Many lack publication dates that should be readily available." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, adding (date not available) made him happy so...*shrug* Like I said, it's fixed now. :-) Gmatsuda 20:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:MOS#Images; there are over-sized images. Thumbs should not have sizes set; user preferences determine size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the size setting for all the images, but added the setting back for the first image (flag) because I thought the blank space in that portion of the article looked far worse than having a photo take up some of that space. Can the article be promoted with this one photo still having a size setting?
In reading WP:MOS#Images, it states that "...the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article." I think this might be the case here, given all that white space I'm referring to. What are your thoughts about this? Gmatsuda 08:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT regarding overlinking of common terms in the article; I suggest an independent copyedit before approaching FAC. Perhaps the WP:LoCE will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a good number of unnecessary wikilinks. You might want to check it out now. Gmatsuda 08:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article and to provide suggestions for improvement. Gmatsuda 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another pass through the article. i think I've addressed your latest comments. Let me know if you think there's more we can do to improve the article. Gmatsuda 09:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More reviewers please!

edit

For anyone interested, we could use more peer reviews of this article. Thanks in advance for your time! Gmatsuda 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Manzanar/archive1&oldid=1248731209"