Wikipedia:Peer review/Montreal/archive2
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed the article on Montreal for peer review because I have been working on this article a lot since its last peer review, and I want to know what the article needs to bring it to the next level (either GA, A or FA). It has over 100 sources (about twice as much as before) and evidently needs some more in the locations I've pinpointed. Any sort of commentary is useful in improving the article. In particular with regards to the way its written, information to add and remove, missing sections, layout, tone, etc. I want this to be a great article and with your input I can help to bring it there.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Thanks in advance, MTLskyline (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Dtbohrer
- A lot of "citation needed" tags (but you already know that).
- Some of the sections need to be summarized more.
- I really think the whole "Neighborhoods" section should only be in its own article. (Of the cities I checked that were FA, a few cities (Cleveland, Ohio & Detroit, Michigan for example) had a section for neighborhoods (and they were at most 3 paragraphs) the rest either didn't mention them (Hamilton, Ontario) or had it as a "see also" (Minneapolis, Minnesota).
- All the "Culture" sections should be merged and condensed.
- "Transportation" should be split to a "Transporation in Montreal" and then summarized in the main "Montreal" article (there's a tag for that already in the article)
- The "Road" section should also be merged with "Transportation" and with the majority of info moved to "Transporation in Montreal"
This is just a brief review of the major problems. I'll add more later. --D.B.talk•contribs 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)