Talk:Wedding Industry In The United States - Tropical Beach Weddings

Name

Per Wikipedia naming conventions, once you move this article to mainspace, it should be at the wedding industry (no capitalization of words, no "the" in the title). I am looking forward to seeing more expansion, you guys should also coordinate the editing, preferably on this talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft review comments

Overall, the article looks to be developing nicely, you have a lot of good content. At this point, I have only two thing to point out: (1) you need to pay attention to hyperlinks - see WP:LINKING. (2) Blogs are not considered a reliable source of information, please try to find better sources - see WP:SPS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Commencing review

I will be reviewing this article. This article covers a range of aspects of weddings, however it also has quite a list of significant problems. It appears that this may have been prepared in the context of some type of assignment so, while I might have normally considered quickfailing this, I will try and outline the main issues and place the article on hold.

• Process: a minor point - the full procedure for nominating a GA wasn't followed, with the nomination template not being added to the talk page. I have rectified this.
• Article name: this appears to be essentially an article about weddings in the United States. It is not strictly about the industry, nor is it a worldwide view of the subject. I have template tagged it for this problem.
• Current templates tagging it for issues: the article is tagged as lacking citations in a section, and lacking categories - these kinds of tags would normally rule it out for progressing to GA status. In addition, it is tagged as currently being revamped or expanded. A GA article would normally be stable, and would not come to GAN with an expansion tag.
• Major issues with references. There is a wide range of issues with the sources:

• Significant issues with scope and coverage of the article.

• There should be a history section. For example, when were non-church businesses first involved in weddings? What were those first industries? What is the relationship between the emergence of civil ceremonies and the industry? When did such ceremonies become possible? Are there any records of who or where the first professional celebrant was (in the US at any rate)? etc
• Structure of the industry should be summarised. Venues, celebrants etc, and whether these tend to be vertically integrated businesses, franchises, sole traders or whatever.
• While there is material missing, there also appears to be material included that doesn't belong in an article on the industry. There seems to be cultural information, for example, on bachelor/ette parties and receptions that is not relevant to this article, but might belong elsewhere on Wikipedia.

• The article lacks 'see also' or 'main article' tags to take the reader to some of the significant number of other wedding-related pages on WP. These could include wedding (itself an article with significant problems, especially with referencing), Bachelor party and honeymoon, to name a few.
• Image issue: the tropical beach scene portrayed in the honeymoon section appears to be a potential copyright violation and has already been tagged for possible deletion. Editors need to consider Wikipedia:Image use policy etc.
• Unencyclopedic language. For example "...the cameras follow these seemingly normal brides as they turn into raving monsters during the planning..." This material is not in any case relevant to this article, but if it was, it would need to be revised to be neutral and factual for the purpose of an encyclopedia.

This summarises some key issues. I will drop in over coming days and see how things are developing. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Closing review

Thank you for addressing some issues. The article has been appropriately renamed, and some language has been improved. However, the references are still poor, and poorly formatted, there is still content included not relevant to the subject, while there is still significant content missing that needs to be covered. The article is a long way from reaching GA status. Thank you for contributing to wikipedia. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Further suggestions

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles. Starting with the lead, there are sections in desperate need of links.
• Images should have concise captions.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.
• This article does not have any categories. Please categorize it with relevant [[Category:Categories]].
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - "some", "a variety/number/majority of", "several", "a few", "many", "any", and "all". For example, "All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green."
• Avoid contractions, such as aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • Fixed as of 3/4/2014 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.87.198 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• The first reference link is dead Seaneseor (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Informations

Looking products related to this topic, find out at Amazon.com

Source of the article : here