Wikipedia:Peer review/Ellis Island/archive1

Ellis Island

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 because i have done a reorganization of article: new template, opener, subsection, headers, addtional references. I have also change it's class from B to C, but believe it may just qualify for B if nudged a bit. Could use some fleshing out in some section, particularly ownership (pre-immigration station era), and general review.

Thanks, Djflem (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were two PRs open for the same article at the same time. I deleted the second and added the bit of text here that was not already present. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is a good start on an important topic, but still needs more work if it is to become a WP:GA, and much more for WP:FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Typically articles are not accepted for peer review if they have major clean up banners in place - the Ownership and In the arts sections need to have their banners addressed
The toolbox in the upper right corner of this peer review finds several issues that need to be worked on. The automated tips have several useufl suggestions. There are 5 or so disambiguation links that need to be fixed too.
The external links tool finds two dead links. One of them is to Geocities.com, which is not a reliable source. The article also lacks alt text per WP:ALT (this is no longer a requirement for FAC though)
The lead is very short for an article of this length and needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
Article needs more references, for example the Staff and In the arts sections have no refs at all, and the block quote in Ownership needs a ref too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Many of the reference have incomplete information. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Images should not sandwich text between them, but this happens in at least two places in the article.
File:AnnieMoore.jpg is of a sculpture and so is a copyrighted work of art. If it was produced as a work for hire for the US Goveernment it owuld be Public Domain (free to use), but more information is needed.
There are some places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these disturb the flow of the article and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
There are also two extensive lists - staff and medical. Could these be converted to text / prose?
The See also section is usually saved for links which are not already used in the article

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]