Article page - Talk page - Project coordination page

Good work by the editors here. I have just a few comments about Lincolnshire:

• The sections need to be reordered to match to the guidelines at WP:USCITY. History typically comes first, followed by geography, etc.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article. That means, talk about the population, location, geography, brief overview of the city's history, economics, etc. Currently it reads like a series of peacock phrases.
  • Comment I fixed it up a bit (I think). I'll read through it a few more times to catch any additional peacock phrases and catch any discrepancies between the lead and its article, and patch those up as well. If you could check on my progress, that'd be great. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be helpful to not "bunch up" citations at the end of paragraphs. Since the citations are supposed to cite hard facts, it'd be helpful to have them interspersed throughout the paragraph as opposed to at the very end.

Well, the bulk of the information comes from the sources bunched up at the ends. What do you suggest? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 04:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The education section is too unfocused. Information about what courses are taught at the school is too mar off topic for an article about an entire town.
  • Update: By unfocused I mean, that the information provided in this section should about the town's relationship with the schools, not the schools themselves. So the like I said about above, the information about foreign language courses should be removed, at the very least. epicAdam^(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Demographics: Sourcing is thin. You also have to link directly to the page where the information is found; you can't just leave the citation as being the homepage for the American Fact Finder, even if that's what you used.
  • • Reply Okay, under that lens I think I have some ideas of what to add, although most of the matter is already located in other sections of the article (Safety and Sports & Recreation, respectively). However, does that mean I will have to remove the other collections of information about the History of Half Day Intermediate School, and of the awards that each school district has been noted for? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing in the article should be bold except for the article name(s) in the lead. Done per IvoShandor's edits here and here
• The radio station information under Culture is a bit too unfocused as well. Not sure that a radio station making an appearance at a local event is encyclopedic information.
  • Update: As for the information here, I would really just clean it up. There's a lot of text about the radio stations that I just don't think is necessary. Keep the information about the annual town events, however. Also, are there any notable/historic places in town that could be mentioned here? If so, this is the section to do it. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Historic? As far as I can tell, nothing's on the National Register of Historic Places. From lore of friends in the area, the oldest building in Lake County, Illinois was there, but it got demolished recently. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Andrea Jaeger cover may violate fair use. The article isn't about the album itself and therefore does not qualify as critique commentary under fair use.

With some more work, and a detailed look at the guidelines at WP:USCITY, this article should be ready for GA in the near future. I will put it on hold for the time-being. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I reordered the sections the best I could according to WP:USCITY; I left the transportation section, however, as a subsection of geography because since this is such a small settlement, I feel it would serve more use there. --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it being a small section, Transportation is not really a part of "Geography". I mean, anything can be part of geography if you stretch the meaning of the word far enough. I really do recommend that it be broken into a separate section, or a subsection under "infrastructure". Further, information about public safety would go under government, and details about crime, specifically, go under "demographics". -epicAdam^(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and  Not done: I put Tranportation back under Infrastructure and Safety is now under Government. However, Lincolnshire, from what I have learned, is nigh invisible on the criminal radar. I don't think I'll find enough on Lincolnshire's criminal activities to form a new section. Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 21:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I fixed the screwy citation in the Demographics section. --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 01:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see the reference fixed, however, you shouldn't just leave the citation in the same spot. I would put that citation at the end of each paragraph so that it's clear that each block of information came from that source. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done? I removed the Andrea Jaeger picture, and will replace it later on with something involving Lincolnshire parks (maybe). --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 01:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of pictures is totally up to you. I would say that the article has enough pictures at current. I would definitely keep quality in mind over quantity. Pictures should illustrate unique aspects of the town. For example, I don't think the picture of Route 22 is a good picture, because that could be a picture of any highway; there's nothing that makes it unique to Lincolnshire. -epicAdam^(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that titles of books and magazines are always written out in their full name using italics... so US News should really be U.S. News & World Report. Let me know when you make some more improvements to the article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that the only case of this in here is the US News and World Report, which has already been resolved. In that case,  Done --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that most of the WP:MOS problems are fixed I can go into greater detail with the prose. Honestly, it is not good. The lead, especially, still doesn't really summarize the article. For example, why is "Lincolnshire has been recognized as a Tree City USA since 1988." the second sentence? It's really unimportant and totally out of place in the lead. This entire bit from "unincorporated Half Day area" to "collectively completed by the 2000s" is very confusing to readers who are unfamiliar with the area and second, it's unclear why this information needs to be present in the lead. What does "The village experiences elements of the Des Plaines River," mean? An encyclopedia should not be poetic. If it means that the Des Plaines River flows through a part of the town, then that should be said instead. The trivia about the high school is also unnecessary in the lead, unless the school somehow defines the town. If so, then that should be made clear as well. The information about notable people should also not be present in the lead. People don't often summarize a town.

Further, the sourcing is still missing in areas. For example, in the geography section the sentence references the Census Bureau as the source of the land data, but there's no citation. Also, it is typically unnecessary and undesirable to make a direct reference in the prose to a source, (e.g. "According to Fizber.com compilations..."), unless it is somehow important. Further, that data directly conflicts with the chart below that shows a total precipitation of 36 inches...

These issues are just an example of issues that I still have with the article. It is still in need of a few good copy editors to really tighten up the prose and truly focus the article text. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can't copyedit or review articles as my English is too bad. I have changed two minor points (see page history). In my lightweight opinion a good article. Greetings. Sebastian scha. (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Sebastian.

However, epicAdam, because writing for Wikipedia is not the only writing I do, I've trained myself to write poetically like in the article and now do so without much second thought. Heh, I'd be a terrible copyeditor.

I'll take a look at WP:PRV, see if anyone's open. Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 15:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I contacted Jordan Timothy James Busson, and he has agreed to copyedit the article. He will not be able to start immediately, but he should be cleaning up the article by this coming Tuesday. Just to let all passerby know. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That sounds good, but since this review has been open for quite awhile, I'm going to close it until the copyedit is completed. Please renominate then! Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]