Wikipedia:Peer review/Auckland/archive1

Auckland
Apart from being rated A-class for WP:V0.5 this article hasn't received any reviews at all it seems. I think it is fairly decent but it would be beneficial to see what non-Aucklanders think of it.--Konst.able 12:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement about the funding of the Western Ring Route needs an inline citation from a reliable source. Please also look over the list guideline to make sure the article adheres to it. -Fsotrain09 18:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed that statement since I couldn't readily find a source for it. The funding options for that motorway can be better explained in the Transport in Auckland article than in the general article.- gadfium 22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I presume the suggestion about examining the list guidelines is primarily directed at the Auckland section. This section has previously been split off into its own article but an Afd recommended re-merging it. Would it be better merged into the Leisure section as text?- gadfium 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so. Good work overall. -Fsotrain09


 * I've merged the contents of the "Attractions and landmarks" into the rest of the article, mostly into "Leisure" and "Sports" sections.- gadfium 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated in my comment on gadfiums discussion page, I disagree with that move. I think that section was way more than 'just a list'. It was well written, succinct info collected under a good theme '(physical) landmarks and attractions'. MadMaxDog 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, I am thinking of reverting the edits. But I'd like to hear people's comments beforehand. MadMaxDog 04:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs a section on Media and a section on city Government, and also some mention of the crime rate would be helpful. Andrew Levine 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you might want to look at San Francisco, California for more ideas. Andrew Levine 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As has been noted on the talk page more care needs to be taken in differenciating between Auckland City (which has a different page) and this Auckland region - facts that are about "Auckland City" (eg crime rates) need to be replaced with figures for the region instead.

More references needed.

I found some compound sentences a bit strained and had to re-read them to make sense (eg second paragraph of Growth of Auckland), --AGoon 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more inline page citations would be nice. If it's not a hassle, try converting to tags, as with the current system in the article, I can't click the reference number in the main article to read the reference body in the reference section. CloudNine 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking for. More citations would always be nice, but all existing citations are already in format. I've added to those that didn't have names.- gadfium 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, my bad. I just saw the superscript 1 by the population fact (in the infobox) and immediately assumed you were using an old system :) CloudNine 11:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)