Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Tamalpais/archive1

Mount Tamalpais

It's been quite a while since this article was last assessed and there has been a lot of improvement made since then. If you want to review this article then please comment on the article quality and/or re-assess the article. Any suggestions for improving the article are also welcome. I would like to see this article get to at least GA class. Hydrogen Iodide 05:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• One simple (not so simple) thing might be to include some kind of topographical chart presenting information that is otherwise threated through the text.
  Also the cultural section lands with a thump. It's nothing more than trivia, and the "MT in art" section is nothing more than one of those endless namedrop paragraphs that are unuseful in that the links (and in this instance the names are almost all red or unlinked) lead to the persons in question and not to the art in question, which is much more helpful.
  Conservation issues part is way too light but that goes without saying; references are nicely varied but still lacking over all, especially in the art section.--Pablosecca 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• See WP:LEAD for beefing up the lead; also, redlinks in the lead really should be stubbified.
• The first image of Mt. Tam really isn't adequate and could be improved
• The External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:RS
• Websources need last access date, see WP:CITE/ES
• Full dates should be wikified, see WP:MOSNUM
• Miscellaneous is trivia that should be deleted, unencyclopedic
• Weddings is a stubby section (one sentence) and should be expanded elsewhere or merged; there are many more ceremonies on the mountain than weddings (Easter comes to mind)
• I fixed the footnote placement per WP:FN with Gimmetrow's ref fixer.
• See WP:UNITS or consider using {{convert}}
• Strange footnote placement and incorrect use of WP:DASH ( Precipitation[2] around Mount Tamalpais varies greatly from around 27.5 - 31.5 inches (700 - 800 mm) ... ) What is the [2] footnoting, and those hyphens should be unspaced endashes. And this should be an emdash: Coast redwood forests are restricted to areas where the particular ecological needs of redwood are met – areas characterized by high ...
• LOTS of content expansion needed. Example, what wildlife? Cultural history is a lot of stubby, one-sentence paragraphs that could be expanded. Hang gliding ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)