Wikipedia:Peer review/New Finland, Saskatchewan/archive1

New Finland, Saskatchewan
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to see which areas need improvement, and if there are any missing subjects. Would like to see if it could become a "good article" at some date.

Thanks, SriMesh | talk  02:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:
 * General points
 * Two disambiguation links: Dakota and St. John's Day
 * Fixed, thank you.


 * The toolbox indicates ref 20 as a dead link, though it worked perfectly OK for me.
 * Works for me too.

The lead should briefly summarise the full contents of the article. This lead concentrates almost entirely on the location of the district and its geographical relation to its neighbours. It needs to be rewritten. Note that leads are broad summaries, and should not include small details
 * Lead
 * I think this lead adds some information from most of the sections of relevance, without being too long for the length of the article proper.

There are numerous prose glitches throughout the article. Some examples, taken from the History section
 * General prose
 * "the first Finnish settler arriving to..." → "the first Finnish settler to arrive at..."
 * Fixed


 * "...setting up a homestead on SW 1/4 Tsp 36 Rge 17 W2". You need to give a prose description of the location
 * Fixed, I used the abbreviations for the further usage of the legal land descriptions. In Saskatchewan, this is a commonly used rural address such as the term "123 Main Street" is a common term for urban dwellers.


 * In this context it is better to say "by" or "from", rather than "as of"
 * Fixed


 * "To this effect..." → "With this in mind..."
 * Fixed


 * Sentences sould not begin "So, ..."
 * Fixed


 * "This letter was in response to articles placed in the Finnish newspapers by the United States who wished to discourage settlement in Canada." It would be clearer if you said "negative articles", and placed a comma after "Unitd States". Incidentally, shouldn't this be "United States governement" (or whatever US agaency as responsible)?
 * Have to look up original source, or cannot make this change.


 * "Many of these new immigrants were "Church Finns" who had an emphasis on religion and established their religious institution, the St. John Suomi (Finnish) Lutheran Synod by 1893; building their church in 1907." Sentence is too long, and clumsily phrased. I suggest something like "Many of these new immigrants were "Church Finns" with strong relious beliefs. By 1893 they had established their religious institution, the St. John Suomi (Finnish) Lutheran Synod; in 1907 they built their church."
 * Changed


 * Confusion in the chronology. You report the building of the church in 1907. You then go back to 1899 to record the growing population. You follow this with an undated sentence "The community had erected both a church and two schools" – presumably referring to some time after 1907. Needs more clarity.
 * Fixed


 * "Curently is too vague (Wikipedia articles have long lives). You need to be specific, e.g. "In 2010..."
 * Fixed

With this number of problems identified in the first section alone, it seems clear that the article needs a thorough all-through copyedit.
 * Other points
 * Why give the 1899 population in the infobox?
 * First and only enumeration of the district


 * In the infobox, the "density" is given as "5.4/km²", while the "Statistics" table shows "0.6 inhabitants per square kilometre"
 * The infobox density is for the community, the statistics table in the article is for the rural municipality or RM as per the prose in the demographics paragraph. Changed the statistics template for the new and improved one


 * "Note:$15.00 would be the same as about 0.00" ?
 * This is the wikipedia template calculation which does the arithmetic automatically, I tried to make a clarification to the numerical calculation which was arrived at.


 * What are the small numerals (90, 91, 160) in the Geography section?
 * This is the "rp" command from the wikipedia template for citations. It is a pre-written code by wikipedia programmers, you would have to take it up with them why they do their bibliographic references in this manner, it is how they advise to do it on the citation template page. The small numbers (90, 91, 160) refer to the page numbers from these books which are not online.


 * In the "Statistics table, what does "Ranked Not Available out of 5,008" mean, and what is the point of including headings when information is "not available"?
 * I don't know this is a wikipedia template, I don't know why it was written this way, talk to the template developers for the 2006 census...it is like that on all Canadian articles which use the template, as Statistics Canada did not make the information available, Maybe the wikipedia template designers wanted the 2006 template to be comparable in statistical documentation to the 2001 template.  This comment would be best asked on the 2006 census template talk page.
 * See that there is now a new statistics template in use, so changed to the new one...no way to change the template title as far as I can see.

As to the article's more general development, some of the sections look in need of development, e.g. Geography, Education (mostly a list of schools). I believe that this could be a credible Category B article, but a fair amount of further work is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing comments made in the above PR SriMesh | talk