Wikipedia:Peer review/Banagher/archive1

Banagher[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I have done extensive updating on it and brought it from Start to B rating. I have followed the WP:MOS and referenced extensively. I would like to know how far away it is from being a GA or FA. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and it was suggested by an editor working on the Wikipedia Ireland Project that I submit it for peer review.

Thanks, Corcs999 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. If you want more comments, please ask here.

History section ends in 1963 as far as I can tell - nothing has happened in 45 years?
Generally well referenced, but some sections need refs, for example the first, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Geography have no refs, or the second paragraph of Cuba Court.
Watch for needless repetition - for example Cuba Court gives details on Charlotte Brontë and her connection to Banagher in about the depth needed, then there are four very detailed paragraphs on her connection in Literature and the Arts (see WP:HEAD - this should be "Literature and the arts" I think). This does not need to be in two places in the article.
A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Navenby and Bath, Somerset are FAs and more possible models may be found at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I'll take those comments on board. I've had a look at the articles you mention and will be guided by those. I might come back to you when I have some more work done, if that's ok? I will also consider peer reviewing an article at that stage - I am new to this so might need a bit more experience for that.--Corcs999 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop me a line on my talk page to take another look. Take your time on peer reviews, but any help is always appreciated here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]