Talk:Greater Sudbury/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick look
I'm going to be out of town for Thanksgiving, so I wanted to give you something to look at if you want to this week. I tried to fix some of the stuff I noticed on the first time through.

Prose
Most of the prose seemed pretty good. Here are some things that should be fixed:
 * The first sentence of the last paragraph under "Early History" is long and probably a run-on.✅
 * "The city's former mayor William Marr Brodie had himself been appointed to..." Did he appoint himself?  It's not really clear.✅
 * The World War II heading might need changed. ✅
 * The "Municipal Structure" section should probably be moved. Maybe to the Government section where it talks about annexing towns.✅
 * For the list of top employers, give the year that these stats are from. ✅
 * The sentence about the SNO detector in the seismic activity section probably needs removed. I don't know if it is needed in this particular article.  It would be better in the "Science and Technology" section where the SNO experiment is mentioned. ✅

Images
All images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Captions are good. The only issues, which do NOT affect GA status, are the positioning of some pictures - MOS:Images. Check it out if you want.

If you have any questions, or issues, or you just think my suggestions are bogus, let me know. I have not reviewed many articles, so I might be too strict on some things. Also, after you address an issue, strike it out or mark it in some way. InThe AM 17:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well-written
There are/were a lot of issues with the prose. I tried to fix as much as I could, but I am not familiar with the subject, so I was not able to fix some of the things. I noticed a lot of run-on and confusing sentences throughout. Words like "although," "however," and "thus" are used a lot and make the sentences difficult to follow in some places. The Sports section also has many problems. The layout is fine, and the lists are good.
 * Sentences with although, however, and thus are not run-on sentences. They might be long, but if the punctuation is correct they will be complete, proper sentences.TheKurgan (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable
The issues with references are listed above.

Broad in coverage
The article addresses the main topics, but seems to lose focus in some places. Some instances of too much detail may include:
 * sentence about parking meters
 * paragraph about Robert Carlin ✅
 * paragraph about Paul Robeson ✅
 * sentence about Peter Mansbridge ✅
 * lists of music artists ❌
 * left these in, as it seems like this may be the only article to link to those pages, and if they have individual pages they should qualify as notable. Mattximus (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * list of people from Sudbury ❌
 * list is small and a good summary of the separate page on notable people from Sudbury, I think this section is sufficiently broad in coverage. Mattximus (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, the point of having the separate list was to prevent the accumulation of too much trivia in this article; for example, there's no discernible reason why "NHL players who've played in at least 1,000 games" are so uniquely notable that we would need them to simultaneously appear on the list and as a special classification of people to be singled out for a second mention in the city's primary article. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this section should have just a few of the most notable people from Sudbury, I thought a small sample of NHL players would be good to include, so picked an arbitrary cut off. Definitely open to suggestions. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * paragraph about Nortario Films ✅
 * government history section

Neutral
The article seems to have neutral point of view.

Stable
The article is stable.

Images
The articles images and captions are adequate.

The article did not pass.