Wikipedia:Peer review/Saint John's Island/archive1

Saint John's Island

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have advice on how the article can be further improved. I would like suggestions on the content gaps to be filled, advice on which content is irrelevant, and the quality of the citations and style, especially with regard to the lead and history sections.

Thanks, Rabbitson2001 (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Some comments after a quick skim:

• "Its Chinese name was later officially replaced with a translation of its English name, ‘St John's Island’ (Chinese: 圣约翰岛; pinyin: Shèngyuēhàndǎo)." Needs a citation
• In "Demographics", put the line about no residents on the island at the end of the paragraph, so that the information is chronological.
• The titles of works in the References should not be in all caps

For ideas on sections to add to the article, consider reading some of Wikipedia's featured articles on similar topics like Caroline Island and Powder House Island.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments from skyvine

In the etymology section, my brain stumbled over the first sentence of the second paragraph. I think it would be easier to read if the idea that the name originally referred to both islands was introduced at the beginning of the section.

I was surprised to see the history section start with colonization, is there no information about the history of the island prior to this period?

Under the section "Quarantine centre", the statement "Despite the quarantine laws and the island’s treatment facilities, not all passengers were quarantined nor received the same level of care due to classism" makes me nervous. The idea of "classism" is both vague and politically charged. However, that does not necessarily rule it out. I would be more comfortable with this sentence if the citation included a quote, so that the exact claim of the original source is clearer.

There are some dead links in the "Detention centre" section. Some of the links have an article available in an alternate language, but some do not - are all of them supposed to have an alternate language link?

Under "Drug rehabilitation centres", there is a sentence "Institutions have previously attempted to rehabilitate addicts, but only a fraction of patients were permanently cured". It's not clear to me whether this is stating that there was a historical record of failed rehabilatory institutions, if it's a comment about the success of efforts on the island, both, or something else.

Similarly, does the statement "The experimental opium rehabilitation programme was noteworthy for medical institutions" mean that medical institutions find it noteworthy, or that it is noteworthy due to the involvement of medical institutions?

I'm a little concerned about source diversity. More than a third of the citations come from one source, The Straits Times. This seems a little excessive, although I don't see any guidelines about source diversity so I'm not sure if others would find this percentage concerning skyvine 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Closing note: Since this editor has not edited Wikipedia since February, I am going to close this PR. A new PR can be opened after the above are considered by article writers. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)