Wikipedia:Peer review/Winnipeg/archive1

Winnipeg

Article about a Canadian provincial capital, with plenty of information, would need suggestions for improvement.jdobbin 01:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

Wow - a massive amount of writing (40 KB of prose, which is bordering on too long), but all almost completely uncited. You'll need to go back and cite everything. Also, the footnotes aren't correctly formatted. You might solve the size problem, as well as a big part of unreferenced text, by spinning all the notables into a daughter article, using summary style - all of those people will need to be cited, and it's too listy for the article anyway - you can kill three birds with one stone by removing the people to their own article. Have a look at San Francisco, California for an idea on referencing needed. Good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look at San Francisco, California as guide. I think I need all the help I can get though as it is getting way too long. jdobbin 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily solve that be spinning your residents' list into a daughter article. Sandy (Talk) 21:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did that just now. And I am working on citations for verifiable facts in the body of the article. Thanks for looking in the article. I have a long way to go cutting the article down to size.jdobbin 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of headings: Transportation and Sports have a lot of sub-headings; many contain little information; maybe the entire sections could be copied to sub-articles (with the structure maintained, they might grow further there), and the sub-headings removed from Winnipeg, with just the most important information kept. For a well structured article, see Canada. --Qyd 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at moving much that section to a sub-article. Thanks. jdobbin 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Bobanny

first sentence is awkward and the first paragraph has too much repetition/redundancy (city, Canada/Canadian, major/largest). Do all those nicknames really need to be in the introduction?
footnotes go after punctuation, not before
history section has no footnotes (and others)
IMO, the information contained in the lists of the demographic section should be converted to prose, same with education lists
Is there a reason “Canadian Forces Base Winnipeg (CFB Winnipeg)” is in a bold font? If it has exceptional significance, that should come across in the text.
In the transportation section, the freeway claim needs a reference (Vancouver makes a similar claim). Also, that sentence needs to state what happened to the freeway proposal, otherwise, those 2 sentences contradict each other.
Bus terminal section: 1. don’t use @ 2. another list that should be done away with/converted
same with bulleted points under ‘Winnipeg Transit’
change “8 percent” to 8%: this stuff needs to be totally consistent throughout the article
Too many subheadings: makes table of contents really big, and would be better to structure it into prose
only full dates should be wikilinked, not years (1897 in arts and culture section; March 1986 and December 1994 under TV stations).
What does it mean that Winnipeg has “supported” Hollywood films?
”See also: Archiseek: Winnipeg” should be a proper footnote or in the external links section
That the bear’s name was “Winnipeg” needs a cite, IMO.
’Notes’ need to be formatted correctly (see here for templates).
Format references: book and journal titles need italics, ISBN numbers need to be dug up, and check the alphabetization of the list. Actually, these should be incorporated into the ‘notes’ section with corresponding footnotes in the text.
“InWinnipeg.ca” in the external links is linkspam, and should go
Needs more and better photos. I think an action shot of the General Strike would be more interesting than a big crowd. All photos from that strike are public domain, and there’s likely tons of excellent ones available from online databases (Library and archives Canada for example). Also, the NASA shot from space is an interesting image, but there’s likely a colour one available that would liven up the article visually. Photos could also be spaced better throughout the article.
In sum, there are quite a few technical things that need to be taken care of, but when that’s done, this article should be in pretty good shape. Lack of citations is the biggest problem, and too much information is structured in lists and tiny subsections that should be converted to prose.

Good luck with this. There’s no reason why this couldn’t make it to featured status with a bit of elbow grease. Bobanny 07:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will start on your list of things. I hope I get some help on it because there are probably people out there with far more skill at citations. jdobbin 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]