Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia/Peer review

WikiProject
District of Columbia

General Information
Main project talk
Members talk
Requested articles talk
Requested Images talk
Articles up for deletion talk
Departments
Article Improvement and Requested Help talk
Article Assessment talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Statistics

The peer review department of the District of Columbia WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.

The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.

All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the District of Columbia WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.

WikiProject peer reviews
A Wikipedia Peer Review can be a useful way to improve articles associated with this WikiProject. To see active peer reviews on Wikipedia, click here. To learn how to request a peer review, click here. If your project has article alerts enabled, reviews will display on that list.

To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.


Old requests

edit

National Mall was previously rated as C on the project's quality scale. Many revisions have been made to the article since that rating was assigned. I therefore request peer review to determine a new quality rating for the article. Corker1 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just noticed this article and wanted to comment. I think the article has made a lot of improvements but it still needs some work. Here are some specific suggestions:
  1. Some of the sections are still pretty short and need to be expanded
  2. The lede needs to be expanded
  3. The references need to be cleaned up a bit. I see a couple different citation styles being used and normally only one should be used.
  4. There seems to be a lot of use of multiple inline references for short bits of information. If the details are in one just pick the best ref rather than using several.

I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]