Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know how I can improve it. I've contributed a lot to the article - mainly census information and the infobox on the right but I don't edit that much on Wikipedia and I'd like to hear the opinions of others on the quality of this article. Thanks, ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) edit

Okay, I'll review from the perspective of a potential GA with aspirations to greater things in the future!

  • The lead needs expansion, per WP:LEAD.
    • I'll look into that.
  • Red link in lead needs to be fixed.
    • Fixed.
  • Inline citation (the [1] in the lead) should be made into a reference using the {{cite web}} template.
    • I'll look into that too... I don't really understand how to do those citations but I'll try later. Done.
  • Use the {{convert}} template so distances etc will be shown in Imperial and metric.
    • I don't understand?
      • You have a distance in the lead, 100km. To appeal to people who don't understand metric measurements (i.e. kilometres) but prefer imperial (i.e. miles), use the {{convert}} template to do this for you automatically. Read the documentation with the template, it's pretty straightforward. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try that. Done.
  • Why is this called Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador when plain old Twillingate would seem to suffice?
    • It's called Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador because the town is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and every other article pertaining to a town or city is like that. You don't see Los Angeles, you see Los Angeles, California.
      • That's becuase there are other "Los Angeles" in the world, I don't see any other "Twillingate"'s... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still think the state/province name should be included in the article. It seems like every other town or city, regardless of similarity to other towns or cities has it.
  • The manual of style regarding headings says not to capitalise every word in the heading (unless, of course, they are proper nouns).
    • Twillingate is the name of the town; Newfoundland and Labrador is the name of the province.
      • Section headings I mean, so "Accommodations and Businesses " should be "Accommodations and businesses "
        • I'll fix that as soon as I finish these comments.
  • Image:Twillingate.jpg is used twice, no need.
    • Changed that.
  • There is a serious lack of citations.
    • I'll look into that.
  • 1880's should be written 1880s.
    • Fixed.
  • "The area is known for it's rich culture." - grammar check required - its rich culture.
    • Doesn't an apostrophe show ownership? Doesn't the area "own" it's culture as such?
  • What is "mummering"? If you link an article which doesn't exist then you either need to create the article or ensure that there's sufficient explanation here. Both is preferable.
    • Linked to mummers play (equivalent), I have no clue why the article is called that instead of just mummering.
  • Demographics section needs to be written as prose. If you're dead keen on the statistics then consider graphing them.
    • How do I graph?
      • Create a graph in Excel and export it as a .png file which you can upload to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm kinda busy so I don't have the time to do anything like that now but maybe in the future.
  • "if you are coming from" - this is an encyclopaedia so more like "if approaching from..."
    • Fixed.

Quite a bit of serious work to be done in order to progress this article further, most importantly with regard to the references and the manual of style violations. Let me know if I can help more. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added comments. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol edit

This article is off to a good start, and a sure improvement over the old version preserved on the talk page. The images are good, and the info is interesting. However, I agree with TRM that it needs some major work for further development. I don't find MOS to be much a problem yet – I think it's too early to go through it with the MOS comb. My major suggestions are:

  • The body needs more meat on its bones. Right now we have a good skeletal structure – but the parts don't have much substance. For example, if "Folk music" is really important enough to have its own sub-section (ie, it's an important part of the town), it deserves at least two full paragraphs. (Right now it's only one sentence.) If you can find books, articles, and documents to flesh out the various subjects into which the article is divided, do so. Otherwise, you should combine them into simply "Culture", and not use sub-heads for small bits.
  • The pictures need to be spaced out more. Right now the "edit" buttons for the first six sections are all scrunched together beside the stage/wharf image. See Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Avoiding image "stackups" for more information. You might consider the gallery option.
  • The "History" section is good, but it should be split into two paragraphs, and it could use some citations. The same is true about "Economy", but I'd like to see that expanded as well.
  • The "Demographics" section should definitely be in paragraphs, not lists. Lists and tables in general are best when used as sidebars to prose. (I think Gifu, Gifu uses tables well, for example.) You could easily describe this information in 4-5 sentences, rather than 30 lines of stats, many of which are "0".
  • The same goes for "Surrounding areas". Instead of just listing these places, explain their historical, cultural, economic, and/or political relationships with Twillingate.
  • How about a "Geography" section, to discuss the makeup of the land and coast?

Good luck with this article! I hope my comments are useful. As always, if you have any questions, please let me know. – Scartol • Tok 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Qyd edit

  • Consolidate "Location" and "Surrounding areas" in a section called "Geography", consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline for sections sequence.
  • Use {{Geographic Location (8-way)}} instead of the table at bottom.
  • Convert all inline external links into references using Wikipedia:Citation templates system.
    • It took a while for me to understand but I finally done it. Does it look alright? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place pictures in relevant sections instead of a gallery.
    • Another user suggested a gallery...
      • That was because of alignment problems, if you would place pictures on the left side (at least in the sections overlapped by the infobox), alignment wouldn't be an issue.
  • History section needs to be wikified and referenced.
  • Culture section has short subsections, should be either combined in one larger section, or the subsections need to be expanded if there's enough material.
    • Combined.
  • Demographics section has too many lists, could be converted to tables, and some explanatory text should be added (prose is better).
    • I combined it sort of but looks messy. I'll work on that one later.
  • Economy should be expanded.

Apologies if some comments are redundant to the ones above. Happy editing. --Qyd (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from maclean25 edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Twillingate,_Newfoundland_and_Labrador/archive1&oldid=203416272"