Wikipedia:Peer review/Montevideo/archive1

Montevideo[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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, being Montevideo the capital city of a country, it's relevant enough to have a featured article.

Thanks, NicoBolso (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The top of the Peer Review page makes it clear that the process is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This article in its present form does not qualify for such a review. Take a look at other capital city articles, specially those that have acquired featured status, and see how far away this one is from such a standard. There is no reason why it should not develop into a featured article in the future, but much work needs to be done. You could start by adding to the references and enabling the removal of the "unreferenced" banners. I would suggest bringing the article forward for peer review again only when significant development work has taken place. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Agreed with the above. In fact, the PR page also says that "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners " but this has an additional citations needed banner. Anyway, here are some standard suggestions for improvement.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be expanded to more paragraphs. 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 but Mercer consulting is only in the lead.
My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but many of the section headers are not in the current lead. Please see WP:LEAD
Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, my rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
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
Much of the article is just lists (bullet points) and should be converted to text where possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]