Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackburn Hamlet/archive1

Blackburn Hamlet

Although I've been contributing a lot lately to Wikipedia, this is the first time I've majorly contributed to the prose of an article rather than just statistics and tables. I've referenced the hell out of it, added a few paragraphs and would really like to see how I did and possibly know if it's past its rating of start-class.

Thanks a bunch, Cepiolot (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

• Why is one usage of "lands" in the lead capitalised, yet the others are not?
• One sentence paragraphs be avoided where possible. The sentence "Blackburn Hamlet took its name..." should probably just be merged with the end of the first paragraph. Likewise the one sentence paragraphs at both the beginning and end of the 'History' section should be merged or expanded if possible.
• I'm not sure if it's commonplace to wikilink sub-ection titles such as "Early Childhood Education". Also i'm not convinced they need to be sub-sections; can't you just bold-heading them? In my opinion since each sub-section only contains a few words all this is accomplishing is making the infobox a lot bigger than it has to be. I should mention, however, that I don't have any experience working on articles for towns, so apologies if this style is the norm.

Overall I think you've done a really good job on this article; well done. I'm upgrading this to C-class. Freikorp (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Relentlessly

• As Freikorp says, the one-sentence paragraphs aren't great. The first one logically belongs with the following paragraph. The last one feels unconnected to anything else: is it even something worth including?
• Some of the content feels a little like "Here's something I can reference, let's include it." This leads to disjointed text without a strong narrative. Can you give an overall picture of how the place has changed over time? What is its character today? Who lives there? Why? Where do they work? What do they do?
• I agree again that the education section has too many headers compared to content! You may like to consider the advice at WP:USEPROSE.
• The references in the population table are a bit mad. You should try to combine them. See WP:CITEBUNDLE.
• Most of the prose is fine, but there are a couple of points I'd pick up on:
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is two entirely unrelated facts pushed together. Make it two sentences to make it more legible. Also, to an outsider, the point about the NCC/RCMP/CFCA lands is incomprehensible.
  • "Blackburn," should be "Blackburn", according to MOS:LQ.

I hope that's helpful stuff: you've already done a decent job of this.

Relentlessly (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)