- Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
This page has undergone many changes over the years.(Last review was in 2007).
What should be improved in it before it is submitted to WP:GAC or WP:FAC?
Thanks, Pheonix (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Dana Boomer
It looks like there has been quite a bit of work put into this article, which is great! However, there is a good bit of further work needed, especially on referencing, before the article is of a quality to be nominated at WP:GAN. WP:FAC necessitates that an article be as close to perfect as articles on WP ever get, so even more work would be needed for that level. Some specific thoughts:
- Quite a few areas needing referencing (note that I'm only listing the ones that any reviewer at GAN would require sources for - some reviewers at GAN and any reviewer at FAC would require sources for additional areas):
- After independence section, second paragraph
- Landmarks, majority of section
- Education, second paragraph
- Annual cultural events and fairs, majority of section
- Sports, majority of section
- A few tags that need to be addressed:
- "When?" tag in Landmarks section
- Dead link tags throughout references
- Besides the links already tagged as dead (which I didn't check for reliability), there are a number of issues with existing references:
- What makes Ref #4 (World Executive) a reliable source?
What is going on with Ref #9 (Prof. Manawadu)?- What makes Ref #32 (Colombo Economy) a reliable source?
Ref #34 (Ministry of Defence & Urban Development) needs to be fixed.- What makes Ref #50 (Galle Face, Hotel) a reliable source?
- What makes Ref #55 (Kermeey.blogspot.com) a reliable source?
- What makes Ref #56 (Reddottours.com) a reliable source?
- What makes Ref #57 (Colonialvoyage.com) a reliable source?
- All web references should have a publisher and access date. References should use the same formatting style throughout the article.
- Language is used throughout the article that requires especially close attention and sourcing to make sure it is not POV - "majestically", "famous", "most elegant", "most popular", etc.
- Text should not be sandwiched between images, as it currently is in several places.
- Sections composed only of bullet pointed links (such as the Suburbs section) are generally frowned upon. Add some text, tell readers why this important, which suburbs are the largest, economically most important, etc.
As I said above, it looks like a good start has been made. This is in much better shape than some other city articles I have seen. However, additional work, mostly focused on references, is needed before this article meets the good article criteria and/or featured article criteria. Let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]