Wikipedia:Peer review/Petitcodiac River/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm getting this article ready for an FAC, and as a result, I would highly appreciate a peer review to iron out the kinks. A copy edit has been requested as well, but I anticipate it to be complete before the PRand has been completed. Anyhow, thanks in advance, and I'll take any advice I can get! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References
  • When short-citing, please divide in General and Specific content, makes it easier to see where the repetitive references are from.
Lead
  • The lead should not have any references in them. If anything is not references later it should then be repeated in main.
    • This has been under debate. WP:LEADCITE gives (what I find to be) a vague explanation to proceed, and there have been recent discussions ([1], [2]) on reforming the current rules. I do not want to remove everything I've done if it is later decided to be a bad move, so I'll take it to FAC with citations; unless I'm misunderstanding the concept of the guideline.
  • tributaries, wl
    • I'm not familiar with PR lingo, but I assume it meant wiki-link. Done.
  • % -> percent
    • Eliminated a few instances, left for numerals > 10.
Lists
  • Why do we need to know where all the crossings are? Seems irrelevant.
    • Just following the example of Aliso Creek (Orange County).
      • IS it a FA and was the subject brought up in the FAC?
        • It is an FA, and I don't see any mention at the nomination. WP:RIVER also recommends the list.
Cultural references
  • These section are not encouraged, could it be deleted?
    • Done.
Extra

Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]