Wikipedia:Peer review/Cape Horn/archive1

Cape Horn
Looking for feedback on whether this is ready for FAC. — Johan the Ghost seance 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The article looks good, the popular section is a bit too short to be worth while, does the Cape appear anywhere else, books, journals of notable explorers, film etc?--nixie 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback; I'll look into that, that's a good point. — Johan the Ghost seance 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick scan of the web didn't show anything up except the ESPN show, and I can't think of anything; so I dunno what to do, it is a bit of a tiny section, but where else to put it? On the other hand, your idea of searching for books turned up the contents of the Further reading section, so thanks for that! — Johan the Ghost seance 00:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You could turn the further reading section into prose and inculde it in the popular culture section, which would go something like The Cape has been the subject of numerous literary works, non-fictional accounts include books X,Y and Z; fictional accounts include A,B and C.
 * There are probably some documentaries about the place too, but I'm not sure how you'd find them, imdb says there is a movie called Cabo de hornos but doesn't provide a description.


 * The Sapinish Wikiepdia has a summary style section about the subnational entity that is on the Cape, it might be worth adding something similar here, especially if you can speak Spanish to traslate the article.--nixie 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll think about those ideas. I found that movie too, but like you I couldn't find any info about it.  Unfortunately, I don't speak Spanish, but I'll look into that.  Cheers!  — Johan the Ghost seance 13:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the ideas — we now have a "Political" section! — Johan the Ghost seance 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And a greatly expanded "Culture" section! — Johan the Ghost seance 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Great work, there is a bit too much unnecessary bolding, really the only thing that should be bold is the article name in the lead. The images could also be increased in size, I normally use 200 - 240px. I also think a brief explanation of why ozone depletion is a problem should be addded, it won't be ob vious to some readers.--nixie 10:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your great feedback. You're right about the bolding; I've kept it for just major introduced terms, like Isla Hornos, which could be search terms that would lead people here — seem reasonable?  I've added more about the ozone hole as per your suggestion.  As for thumbnails, I used to set sizes for them, but was informed that it's best to leave them off.  Each user can set a default thumbnail size in his/her preferences (look under "Files"), and setting a size in the article overrides this, which is not really justifiable.  (I make the lead image big as the one exception.)  — Johan the Ghost seance 12:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it's probably ready to go to FAC.--nixie 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Think you're right; I was just holding off 'cos I was travelling for a couple of days. Thanks again for the help. — Johan the Ghost seance 10:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)