Wikipedia:Peer review/Montreal/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I have been trying to edit this article for several months, yet it seems to keep growing without purpose, especially now that some Wikipedians have voted in a "policy" that means that street names that are never used in their English form are used in their English form because of the belief that the average Wikipedian is stupid. This leads to every guide book I've ever seen referring to "rue St-Laurent", as well as most English-speaking residents, however the article speaks of "Saint Lawrence Street".

The article grows and I'd like to know where and what to trim. Please help! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  • All sections have lots of content, you'll have to trim the sections using wikipedia:Summary style. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One area that is much too long is "Merger and demerger." I would suggest moving it in its entirety to History of Montreal. Some sections should also be turned from lists to prose, for instance compare the education sections in Toronto and Montreal. The sports section needs a similar rewrite, with the lists perhaps moved to a subpage. One thing I am quite surprised by is the lack of a culture section. - SimonP 04:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The Roads section seems to uneven. The first half discusses the road network and traffic patterns, whereas the second half discusses naming conventions and language differences. I suggest splitting these sections with more appropriate titles. Integrate the 'road network/traffic pattern' section with mass transit discussion. --maclean25 06:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Trim and rationalise on the clause level ('festivals and events'—aren't festivals events?) as well as on a larger scale (table of sports venues?). The opening has some overly short paragraphs, and includes inappropriate information for an introductory section (secondary schools? Keep it to an overview that will prepare the reader for the greater level of detail in subsequent sections). Tony 13:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)