Wikipedia:Peer review/Parliament Hill/archive2

Parliament Hill


I've listed this article for peer review to help bring this article to FA status. I got a peer review more than 2 years ago to bring this up to GA status, with the intention on getting it to FA. Since I, with the help of the GA reviewer assigned here, got it to be listed, I'm now looking for it to become an FA. More specifically, I would like guidance on what to do with the large amount of repeated citing of the same source under the statues section.

Thanks, Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment from CT55555
So lots of minor suggestions, no major ones. Overall it seems good. (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you mention the 3 million visitors in the main part of the article, cite it there, to avoid citing in the lead? MOS:CITELEAD
 * 2) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) Why say "work is not expected to be complete until after 2028." rather than "work is expected to be complete uafter 2028." avoiding the double negative?
 * 4) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 5) Previous use of site: can you say which First Nations used it? Can you add more about the Indigenous history of the location?
 * 6) The reference used doesn't give a specific First Nations tribe. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 7) Change "3" for "three" maybe?
 * 8) Not required under MOS:SPELL09 Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 9) Change "The Centre Block and departmental buildings were each awarded separately" To "Construction contracts to build..." or something like that. I can deduce what is meant, but it's not as clear as it could be.
 * 10) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 11) Change "largest project" to "Largest construction project" as there were larger projects (colonising the continent, for example).
 * 12) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 13) I can guess what "Public Works" are, but maybe some words to help the reader understand? Is it a government agency? Could there be a link?
 * 14) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 15) It reads "three of the British North American colonies" then lists four provinces, could that be explained?
 * 16) The Province of Canada was split into Ontario and Quebec. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 17) "Thereafter, the Hill" should "the" be capitalized? Other examples of inconsistency there exist.
 * 18) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 19) Change "11 passenger" for "eleven"
 * 20) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 21) Just an idea, I could be wrong but "Fire, incidents, and renovations" could be "Post-construction history" as "incidents" is a very vague term. Is the 100,000 9/11 event an "incident"? I guess it is. Hmmmm.
 * 22) Interesting idea... I don't think it's as appealing, but I will check on FA review.
 * 23) Link "1900 Paris Exposition" to Exposition Universelle (1900)
 * 24) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 25) Maybe? change "This is the only statue on Parliament Hill" to "The statue of Sir Galahad is the only..." Likewise with the others, name them in the opening line rather than "This work...", "This duel statue..." I'm not sure about this suggestion...
 * 26) I personally think this is a bit redundant. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 27) Link to Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Ministry of Conservation etc in the monuments table.
 * 28) ✅ I can't find anything about a Ministry of Conservation at the federal level but the reference does clearly state that. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 29) "First Nations individual" can we be more specific? A man? A women? What nation?
 * 30) It isn't specified Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 31) Link to Wellington Street (Ottawa) the first time it appears in the article, not the second.
 * 32) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 33) Does the "building contest" mean an architectural competition? Something else? It's not clear to me.
 * 34) ✅ Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * P.S. this is my first peer review, consider this amateur advice. CT55555 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I find the sourcing of the statues section to be acceptable. CT55555 (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I did most of these things and explained my rationale for why I didn't for others. If there's anything else, just let me know. Otherwise, if you think this is suited for FAC or if you think another set of eyes would be beneficial, just reply here. - Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've only just started commenting at FAC, I think I should wait to learn a bit more about FAC before opining on FAC suitability. So I'll just say, I see no reason not to take it to FAC.
 * As this is my first peer review, you may want a second one. I didn't do source assessment. CT55555 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I'm gonna close this and send it to FAC. Thank you! Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)