Wikipedia:Peer review/Auckland/archive1

Auckland[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I presume the suggestion about examining the list guidelines is primarily directed at the Auckland#Attractions_and_landmarks 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

A few more inline page citations would be nice. If it's not a hassle, try converting to <ref> 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)[reply]

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 <ref> format. I've added <ref name=subject> to those that didn't have names.-gadfium 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]