Wikipedia:Peer review/List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois/archive1

List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is a lot of these "List of people from..." pages and I think getting some consensus on what they should look like would be a good move. I chose this list because it's the best example I've seen. Relevant consensus include Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) and WP:USCITY#Notable people. This list has previously been nominated for featured list and the result was not to promote, in order to seek further peer review. This nomination could set precedent for similar pages so a good peer review is in order.

Thanks for your time and consideration, Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead is too short and without image makes for a bland start.
• "The city is home to several notable people" where I come from, that means it's where people actually live, not where they were born/brought up.
• You link Clinton in the lead but not Ford, why?
• The lead claims "most notable" or "widely recognisable" but that seems to just be opinion. Sure, to people in the US, but the sources just back up the bare facts, not the "recognisability" or particular "notability" of the people in question.
• The "see also" could be better woven into the lead and pipe linked so we don't see the ugly "Category:".
• Ref column shouldn't be sortable.
• Because no images in "Academics and engineering" section, table widths all different from the rest of the article.
• In fact, all tables seem to have odd sizing from section to section.
• " 8–year " hyphen not en-dash, there are other issues here (see WP:DASH).
• Image captions are, frankly, dull.
• Names should sort by surname, using the {{sortname}} template.
• Don't see why Known for should be sortable, it's free text.
• "[37] [38]" no spaces between refs.
• Check ref titles for dashes/hyphens per WP:DASH.
• E.g. ref 43, where, what is the Daily Herald?
• Be consistent with date formats, i.e. all publication dates should be same format, all access dates should be the same etc.
• Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
• No need for "anonymous" in my opinion when you don't know who the author of a source was.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest. Yes, a textual "summary" is desirable. Some think there should be no lists at all! Note that this is an eerie mirror of Rambling Man's comment on who should be in the lead! I'm fine with this one, but the problem is defining "most" notable. My grandson's band who tapes in his garage and somehow has an article is pretty notable IMO!  :)

I'm not sure about "born and grew up in." On one hand = human interest, on the other hand, seems parochial.

I like the tabular form justifying and classifying the entries.

I think the pictures are way too large. We might want to limit size in a "standard." (thumb?)

Also we need to place a limit on the number of pictures. Not every entry needs a pic.

Not sure about Grant Wood artwork, though clearly a classic. (And do we really want a picture of Grant Wood?) Does this encourage someone trying to include music, pictures of other art, etc. some of which won't seem as classic?

Also I would truncate "known for" to "profession." This downgrades the list to trivia, which I want to do! I would say "Professional tennis player," and let it go at that. I don't care if they got a "Grand Slam" or "Hat Trick" or were Olympic champs before they went professional. I would just list one and only one profession.Student7 (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to peer-review the article. I just got crazy busy, but plan to work on this over the course of the summer. I think we are starting to get a vision of what these lists should look like. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 13:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)