Wikipedia:Peer review/If Day/archive1

If Day

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 it has recently passed GA and I hope to take it to FAC in future. The article details a very bizarre event in Canadian history: the invasion of Winnipeg by Nazi soldiers. Or not.

Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty good article. Just some minor style things:

I'd link Manitoba in the first sentence. It's linked twice later in the article.
The lead's pretty short, although it's not missing anything major.
These bonds were sold to individuals and corporations throughout Canada, and were loans to the government to allow for increased war spending. → This sentence is a little weird. The two clauses of the conjunction aren't really parallel ("were sold" and "were loans"). I'd rewrite it, something like These bonds, which were loans to the government to allow for increased war spending, were sold to individuals and corporations throughout Canada. or vice versa.
$45 million ($617 million today) → The inflation calculator uses the consumer price index. Is this suitable for war budgeting? I read somewhere that we don't do inflation calculators as a rule because different things inflate differently. In any case, the original price has 2 significant figures so I'd write "$620 million" or just "$600 million".
$24.5-million quota → I wouldn't hyphenate a dollar value.
a 3 kilometres perimeter → I'd expect this to be "a 3-kilometre perimeter" or "a 3 kilometre perimeter".
E. A. Pridham and D.S. McKay. → These are spaced differently.
5:45&nbspam → typo
wore them throughout the day – the temperature was below −8 °C (18 °F) → I wouldn't use an en dash and a minus sign in the same sentence; it looks jarring. A colon or semicolon would work here.
Life Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor → It might be good to explicitly say that these are U.S. papers.
Paramount should be linked.

It's a great story. Good luck. —Designate (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I've addressed most of them, except for the inflation thing. It was requested at GAN, but I have no real preference either way, so if anyone else weighs in I'll just drop it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're all on the same page, I agreed with the comments except that we've never had broad consensus on how to use the inflation template. User:Dank/MIL#inflation may be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: in the first "Effects" paragraph, you have four consecutive sentences which end in "the event". That should be avoided. —Designate (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you ought to include volume/issue information for ref 22. Also, the lead is a bit short. Eisfbnore • talk 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both done, thanks for commenting. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I dropped the ball on this one, I meant to say more before it closed. I mentioned above that I liked Designate's comments. Apart from some unimportant formatting issues (nbsp's before ellipses, and second commas, which are supported by Chicago, which has been influential in Canada for a century), I don't see anything to fix on a quick read. I'll look more closely if this hits ACR or FAC. Really entertaining article; I wish I saw more of these at ACR. - Dank (push to talk) 10:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]