Wikipedia:Peer review/Edmonton/archive1

Peer review/Edmonton/archive1

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to be able to get this article up to FA status and this would be a step towards it.

Thanks,  Cheers  Kyle1278 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by User:LinguistAtLarge
Let my start off saying I think this article is very good as it is, and I don't see a lot I don't like. After a cursory scan of the article, I have the following suggestions: (These are just my personal opinion or suggestions-- use your own good judgement before following them).


 * Education section - I'd put K-12 before postsecondary-- seems more logical to me.
 * Done


 * There's a left-aligned image under a sub heading ( === ) (in the infrastruction section) See MOS:IMAGES.
 * Done


 * The panoramic image that goes the width of the screen might not be appropriate.
 * The caption text for a few of the images, while good and descriptive, seems a bit on the long side. WP:CAPTIONS. Captions should be concise.
 * I don't know if the dollar amounts should be specified as Canadian dollars or not. But there might be confusion whether they are CAD or USD.
 * The weather averages table sort of jumps out at me as being overbearing, but I'm not sure what should/could be done about that.
 * Make sure the article makes good use of a summary style WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. So for each section you have a good summary of important information, while linking to the main article on the topic. I see there are already links to the "main article" for many of the sections, but perhaps the information can be summarized better so as to slightly shorten the article.
 * I'd like to see a larger image in the infobox. Maybe use the same image as now, but zoom in on the center section.

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the suggestions.  Cheers  Kyle1278 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)