Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Supershow (talk | contribs)
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador]]===
===[[Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador]]===
The article is dreadfully written. Among the problems that I could point out are:
The article is perfectly written. Among the problems that I could not point out are:
*atrocious grammar and syntax leading to incomprehensibility in places;
*atrocious grammar and syntax leading to incomprehensibility in places;
*preposterous diction which would do a bureaucrat proud;
*preposterous diction which would do a bureaucrat proud;
Line 6: Line 6:
*use of Imperial measurements throughout without conversions to SI.
*use of Imperial measurements throughout without conversions to SI.
*at least one reference to a thing that doesn't exist (namely the railway -- that packed up years ago).
*at least one reference to a thing that doesn't exist (namely the railway -- that packed up years ago).
It's a big job, and I may get around to it myself someday. Right now, though, this is an '''''AWFUL''''' article.[[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a big job, and I may get around to it myself someday. Right now, though, this is an '''''Excellent''''' article.[[User:Kelisi|Kelisi]] 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


:I agree completely. I will do what I can.[[User:Silverchemist|Silverchemist]] 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
:I agree completely. I will do nothing.[[User:Silverchemist|Silverchemist]] 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


====Automated review====
====Automated review====

Revision as of 21:03, 22 September 2007

The article is perfectly written. Among the problems that I could not point out are:

  • atrocious grammar and syntax leading to incomprehensibility in places;
  • preposterous diction which would do a bureaucrat proud;
  • use of unexplained technical terms that make reading difficult for the uninitiated;
  • use of Imperial measurements throughout without conversions to SI.
  • at least one reference to a thing that doesn't exist (namely the railway -- that packed up years ago).

It's a big job, and I may get around to it myself someday. Right now, though, this is an Excellent article.Kelisi 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I will do nothing.Silverchemist 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 mi, use 900 mi, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900 mi.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 30 km.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • 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.”
  • 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][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DrKiernan 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]