Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 royal tour of Canada/archive1

2011 royal tour of Canada

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article format, content to add/remove, any sort of suggestions. Note that this is up for AfD currently, so even broad suggestions are appreciated, to whip this baby into shape, so people can see it's just my writing that's lacking, not the topic. Thanks, Zanimum (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is no longer an AfD candidate, sadly only "no consensus", but I'd still like to get at least a casual one-over, even though the article is still fairly rough. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

I looked at the AfD when it was running and just glanced at it now. There are some things in the AfD which I expected to be in here, like the three editorials on the increasing irrelevance of the monarchy in Canada. I would look carefully at the AfD and add / edit this to follow any useful suggestions and ideas that came out of that.
There is a toolbox on this PR page. It shows two dab links here that need to be fixed.
It also shows three dead external links here - note that print sources do not need a working URL (as the print version can be accessed in theory at an archive)
The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD, which says that the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be up to four paragraphs long (depending on the article size). I think this lead could easily be 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The whole Western, Cenmtral, Atalantic and Norrthern Canada bit is only in the lead, for example (article should say something like "their visit to PEI allowed them to experience Atalantic Canada" to explain). I might say something more explicit in the lead (say how many provinces and territories they visited, perhaps name them all)
If looking for ideas to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
Another concern is references. While this has a lot of them, it still has some unreferenced bits. There is one citation needed tag, for example.
Statements like Upon landing at Macdonald-Cartier International Airport on Thursday, June 30, the cockpit showed the Duke of Cambridge's Personal Canadian Flag; the newly adopted flag was previewed only the day before by Canadian federal government officials. Among the dignitaries greeting the couple were John Baird, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, David McGuinty, Ottawa South MP, William JS Elliott, Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Jim Watson, Mayor of Ottawa. without a ref need at least one. If a paragraph has one or more refs in it, but has one or more sentences that follow the last ref, then those sentences need to be referenced too.
My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Make sure all refs have the required information. Current ref 27 is just a link with the word "itinerary". Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Be consistent - each day of the tour they did something public get its own section / header (and not just July 2, 4, and 5)
I would also mention whatever they did Sunday in a sentence at the end of the Saturday section (assume they had a day off / out of the public eye)
Make sure to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. So they land in Canada, but the article does not say where exactly the airport is (Ottawa). See Upon landing at Macdonald-Cartier International Airport on Thursday, June 30...
When abbreviations are introduced, spell out the word(s) on first use, followed by the abbreivation in parenthesis - so Prince Edward Island (PEI)
I read quickly but noticed a fair number of typos - strumed (for strummed) comes to mind.
Statements like they were greeted by 5,000 spectators and protestors are vague - was it mostly well-wishers or mostly protestors or evenly mixed? Perhaps something like "They were greeted by a crowd of 5,000, which included a few protestors..." or "They were met by 5,000, most of whom were demonstrating against their visit..." would be clearer
Watch out for short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as these impede the article's flow. Where possible these should be combined or perhaps expanded.
I would mention the previous royal visit (Elizabeth) and any comparisons to it (one of the editorials did this - much less press for Her Majesty)
Make sure the focus is on Will and Kate and their visit. Sentences like Barred from attending the 2010 Stampede parade, attempts to block street preacher Art Pawlowski were unsuccessful. He planned to have his group march following the parade proper, or set up a protest.[42] There were no reports on whether he followed through. are confusing intially as the subject is not clear (who was barred?). I also wonder if this should be included at all - is he notable? Why was he marching (or planning to) and how does this relate to Will and Kate? Keep the focus on the main subjects
This reads like it was put together by many editors adding bits and pieces from news sources over several days (which I imagine it was). I would go through and rewrite it to make the story clearer and clean up the language. Make sure the tenses are correct (past in general, since the visit is over) and that everything is relevant and referenced.
Also make sure that all details are included - when did they return to the UK? What was the reaction in the British press?
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]