Wikipedia:Peer review/Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago/archive1

What separates this article from FA status? As there are no articles of this nature currently Featured, and this is one of the most complete, go through it with a fine tooth comb! Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 17:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need some in-line citations. --Osbus 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going through with a fine tooth and comb (you asked for it!):

Use the   (no-break space) between numbers and their units of measurements (as stated in WP:MOSNUM)
was created on November 28, 1842 and needs a comma after 1842
It also has three - what is it referring to here?
Years and decades without full dates generally should not be linked, as per WP:CONTEXT
recouperate should be recuperate
new territories and soon, more French missionaries I prefer the comma before the word and here.
link Treaty of Greenville
One of Quarter's most important achievements - please clarify here if Quarter came up with the law, helped to allow the law to pass, etc.
=Archbishop of Chicago= is slightly list-weighty
designed by James H. Willett were the chimneys designed by Willett, or was the entire residence?
by the Vicar General who serves comma
Each are should be changed to Each is ([1])
Please alphabetize the categories
Image:Holynamecathedralexteriorfront.jpg needs a proper image tag; the current tag is obsolete and unacceptable
Image:Franciscardinalgeorge.jpg is a fair use image, but doesn't have a fair use rationale and hence fails WP:FUC; please provide a fair use rationale (suggest also that you change the tag to {{fair use in|Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago}} )
As above, inline citations are required; generally, WP:FOOTNOTEs are used, and Cite.php is strongly recommended.

Thanks, AndyZ _t 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I think I have corrected all of those problems, and added some things in the process...what else separates this from being given featured article status? Judgesurreal777 06:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good info, but you asked what separates it so: 1) There aren't really any of what I would consider reliable sources, so a trip to a local research library would be highly recommended. 2) The structure is strange. The article needs to be prioritized by all the most important major topics about the subject. The section headings aren't very helpful to someone that doesn't know the subject very well already, so that needs to be reversed. 2) I expected to see information about how many churches and members are under the diocese. 3) I don't get an idea of what they do because everything is presented with technical terms as if I already know what they are. Wikipedia is an intro to a topic and should be accessible to the greatest extent possible. Add context to give a clear idea of what the subject is, what they do, what impact and importance they have or the lack thereof. 4) Diocesan heads is too much list. Either create prose about them if they are important enough to warrant coverage, or move the lists out to a list article of their own that is linked in See also. - Taxman ^Talk 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok, other than replacing some of the references, and explaining the directory section, anything else? All others have been addressed. :) Judgesurreal777 01:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]