Wikipedia:Peer review/Jacksonville, Florida/archive1

Jacksonville, Florida

This is a great article and I don't think there is a reason why this should not be featured. But if there is, tell me. HereToHelp 19:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that there are no references. This will have to be remedied before it can become a FA. There are a few sections that are too short, such as "Geography" and several in the history section. Geography should be expanded, and the history section rearranged into only three or four sub-sections. It also needs more and better pictures. The skyline image is nice, but forced into the corner of the intro it is much too small. Most sections should have an image. You could have a picture of the town hall in the government section, and image of the Skyway in the transportation section, for instance. The article also need some copyediting. - SimonP 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did some rearranging and copyediting. Nevertheless, there is a lot of lists which should be converted to prose. The history should be summarized with its current form moved into a sub-article. Famous Jacksonville natives should also go into a sub-article. As for references, is the "further readings" section references for this article? If so, rename the section as such (though more references could help). Pentawing 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Another problem that I am running into is the use of "travel brochure" language, notably in the culture section. This should be kept to a minimum if not eliminated completely. Pentawing 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Travel Brochure...you mean POVish in a positive way? Got it. I'll try to do my best with the other suggestions. Keep 'em coming! HereToHelp 01:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Travel brochure" as in (for example) "this event has everything for everyone of all ages." Instead of embellishing information with such language, just state the facts. However, since such language is in the eyes of the beholder, you should get another person to check the wording to make such there are no problems. Pentawing 05:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifacation. But you're right—another person helping me would be useful. Any volunteers? HereToHelp 12:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading section could also use some work. I'll help out when I can.--Cuchullain 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help out too. --Revolución (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I live here in Jacksonville, but I agree this article needs a lot of work. I think one of the main problems is the lack of pictures. I have tried to search for historical pictures for Jacksonville before, but I have not had much success. I did find a picture circa 1920s of downtown but it was deleted by some copyright fanatic who didn't even bother to tell me they wanted to delete it. --Revolución (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We really have improved this article in the last 48 hours. I think the biggest problem now is references, which I'll work on tommorow—it's almost 10:30 where I am. HereToHelp (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with the clean-up. However, there are still some things that could be modified, including:

Information on cityscape (what is the city like? Modern buildings or classical? Spread out or compact? Mostly industrial or parklike?)
Economy needs more work, in particular the type of tourism and business (these terms are very broad. Without specifics, one could assume Jacksonville's business is just banking).

If you want an example to follow, I would suggest the featured city articles Louisville, Kentucky, and Cleveland, Ohio. Pentawing 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]