Wikipedia:Peer review/Little Bow (electoral district)/archive1

Little Bow (electoral district)
This is the first of 83 articles on current Alberta provincial electoral districts to reach completion, Please see my user page for the other written articles. I would like peer review to see if there is anything else that can or should be added to this district article. This district has a detailed ninety year electoral history, and every result has been researched. --Cloveious 01:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The article looks great, and I can see the article has been well researched, but I'd like to know where you reaserached it, please cite your sources. The only other thing I can suggest is working some of the lists into prose, or making graphics for things like the age distribution; the local issues could be expanded a bit too.--nixie 03:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I updated the references, they should all be in the article now. (most were at the bottom) If some artisan wants to make a better graphical way of displaying the demographics data, they would have my gratitude! As for the Local issues, I try to scour the web to find topics of local interest, needless to say its not easy. I have had a debate with myself whether they should remained bullet point or not, and what counts as a local issue. It's hard when you don't live anywhere close to the riding to write about local cross currents, that affect the voting population. --Cloveious 04:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have been working on electoral districts. Here is a BC provincial example and a Canadian federal example. One of the goals I tried is to achieve is to make them a simple and easy to read as possible. I kept the sections short, used tables and strategic bolding. I like to think it is comprehensive and intuitive. For Little Bow I would like to make these suggestions:
 * Sum up the Boundaries section into a couple of sentences. The legal descriptions are way too long, and not that informative. I work with that Township/Range system everyday at work and it is useless to just read it (it needs a map for comprehension). That system is only used in Alberta and some places in BC (maybe Sask, too) so people outside these places will definately have no idea what it is talking about. I suggest using place names (ie. communities, towns, streets for urban areas) that lay inside the borders and provide a link to the legal description (Electoral Divisions Act 2003).
 * Demographics should go into a table and/or graph.
 * Local Issues should be summarized elsewhere. They probably change from election-to-election but can be described in, say, the Geography (or History) section where it explains it is a rural district dependent on ranching.
 * For the election boxes:
 * I would get rid of the red links. They are annoying and distracting.
 * I believe voter turnout is important. This can be written down right beside the year of the election (eg. 2002 Result - 60% turnout).
 * Total votes could be useful, too, but if you do use these also use the turnout because pop canges skews total votes.
 * I like to show financial expenditures. It is a first-past-the-post system and money talks. The real parties can be distinguished and true popularity/unpopularity can be found (see 1991 results). I have found it costs $50 000 to be able (not guaranteed) to win provincially in BC and $30 000 federally.  -maclean25 03:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, I have tuned up the page, combined local issues into the header text. The financial expenditures are another issue, and not all that feasable currently. Elections Alberta does not currently keep candidate financial statements online, and the Central Library in Calgary does not carry all the Elections reports. The boundaries in Alberta generally don't follow noteable things, except for the urban ridings, which make it hard I discovered that when I was doing the Peace River. I am just working on a graph to better display demographics. --Cloveious 07:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have started working on the turnout and total votes, --Cloveious 16:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have provided a Boundary summary, but I am also keeping the Legal boundaries, as well as provided images of all historical boundaries
 * Perhaps I was not clear with my criticism. The 'Boundary summary' you recently provided is excellent in that it helps orient me while describing the district at the same time. My complaint with the Sec-Twp-Rge system is that it is unreadable without a key or a map. I doubt anyone will ever sit there and read that entire section, and if someone did they would not be better informed because of it (just confused). I recognize the desire to be as formal as possible but I think it distracts from the article. Describing lines on maps verbally, especially in prose, is never pretty. Hence the use and popularity of maps. I am of the opinion that all geographic info on the page should be consolidated into a Geography (or what-have-you) section that details, most importantly, place names (ie. communities), then borders (in general terms), and major landmarks or other distinguishing features (eg. mountain range, river, prairie, etc.). My original point was that naming communities and place names that the electoral district covers is more useful in describing where the district is than listing boundary coordinates. Also, I think the "Demographics for Little Bow" external link is broken.  --maclean25 04:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the comment on it being the sixth oldest in Alberta. That sentence came right after a sentence that claimed it was created in 1913 out of five other districts. Speculating that these were not the only five in Alberta, it just didn't add up. Btw, I don't think the 'Riding Association' section adds much to the article. --maclean25 05:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)