Wikipedia:Peer review/Melbourne/archive2

Melbourne

Previous 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to try and get this article to GA status. It is comprehensive and well sourced, and I'd like to know what more needs to be done to make it a GA.

Thanks, Flewis^(talk) 06:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems that the article was delisted because of several uncited statements. I think a good going over of the article and the addition of those citations and it would be back to GA status. I'd be thrilled to help get this article back to GA status. If you need anything, drop me a line. Mvjs (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, Ive scanned over this article with the Link Checker tool, and removed any dead links. I will do my best to bombard the article with as many references and inline citations as possible --Flewis^(talk) 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It was specifically these unsourced statements that caused the article to loose its GA status. Mvjs (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done all of those particular sources have been removed or referenced with inline citations --Flewis^(talk) 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• Prose isn't too bad and a few minor tweaks should be ok for GA. It is very fact-dense and will need quite a few inline references.

• using a standard format for references is helpful in making them look uniform at the bottom of the article.

• Eg for the Melbourne the city's history and development by Miles Lewis, put the full ref at the bottom and have only name and page numbers in the inline cites, like I have done in Red-backed Fairy-wren as an example.

 Done --Flewis^(talk) 03:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article is currently simultaneously nominated for WP:GAN. Please refrain from dual-nominating for two review criteria at once, it can be confusing to some editors. Let one process complete prior to beginning the second process. Thank you. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)