Wikipedia:Peer review/Plymouth/archive2

===Plymouth===
 * Previous peer review
 * 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 2008.
 * 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 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review, because it's undergone a lot of expansion since Novemberish time and no one has assessed it.

Thanks, The Vandal Warrior (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Plymouth/archive2.


 * Comments from «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs )
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark.
 * ✅ Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * ✅ Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Add some more citations to the "Transport" section.
 * Look at all the Citation need tags in the article. Add references and remove the tags.
 * Looks like something is wrong with Ref #19.
 * ❌, I don't see what you mean. It looks fine to me. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's all for now. «  Milk's Favorite Cookie  (  talk  /  contribs ) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are a few more suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead is a bit sparse. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. For example, are governance or deomgraphics in the lead? Please see WP:LEAD
 * Article needs more references, for example last three paragraphs in Early history are unreferenced or the whole Education section has zero refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * I would add inline refs to the five books at the end of refs - or perhaps make them Further reading.

Comments from Steinsky (talk · contribs) Gosh, it has been months, perhaps even years since I participated in PR. I think I quite like the formal structure it has gained. Anyway, to the point...
 * Way too many sub-headings: sub-headings should make the article easier to navigate and break it down into more digestible chunks. Too many sub-headings make navigation more difficult and sections tediously small.  If you find a section that consists of a single paragraph, consider whether it could be merged.  Specifically:
 * Demographics does not need to be sub-divided
 * ✅ removed the heading. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Transport does not need to be sub-divided. Does it even make sense to sub-divide by road/rail/sea/air?  They're superficially obvious categories, but with articles about towns and cities it often makes more sense to categorise them by local vs national/international.  Also, while we're on the topic of transport, has anyone considered turning Railways in Plymouth into a more general Transport in Plymouth article?  How much encyclopaedic info can one get on these topics?
 * ✅ I've removed the subheadings and merged it all. On the topic of merging I've had a look at the article on Railways in Plymouth. It's a large article, but there simply isn't enough information on Road sea, air transport to make one article on transport. If I did have one it would be 80% about railways. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Education: definitely no need to sub-divide this at present
 * ✅ and added that its university is 12th largest with reference, of course. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * International links: I don't know if that bulky table format has become standard since I've been absent, but it's absolutely hideous. While I'm a great supporter of internationalism, I can't pretend that town twinning is of such great note that it deserves a big colourful box -- especially since there is no prose to indicate what the twinning involves.
 * ✅ removed the table. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Geography: The 1936 map is not a huge amount of help. If you ever get a History of Plymouth article, I'd move it there.
 * ✅ created article on the History of Plymouth and moved the map there. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Geography: Some of this is repeated in transport, and I'm not convinced it needs to be in both.
 * ✅ I've removed the short paragraph, which I think you are refering to. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Geography: If you know of any interesting and unique local ecology, it might be nice to tie it in with the description of the local geology here.
 * Off hand I can't think of anything interesting and unique. There is a very large aquarium in Plymouth, if that might be of interest. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Transport: don't be afraid to include criticism and future developments, like the Bristol article does. First Great Western have been widely criticised for poor performance, and that fact is encyclopaedic and verifiable.
 * ✅ First Great Western have come under fire recently, due to widespread rail service cuts across the south west, which affect Plymouth greatly. Three MPs from the three main political parties in the region have joined together to put across the message that the train services are vital to its economy.


 * Economy: That table means very little. These tables were bulk added by somebody a few years ago, and a lot of them were instantly removed or shoved off to economy sub-articles (see, for example, Economy and industry of Bristol).  There is no context (comparison with regional, national averages, or other cities) and it's a bit technical for such a general purpose article.  It would be better to have a prose economy section and shove the table off elsewhere.
 * ✅ I've now removed it. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Religion: "There are many Christian churches in the city." This is probably the most mundane and self-evident fact anybody could come up with to describe an English city.  How many of the buildings and congregations listed in this section are noteworthy or unusual for a city of this size?
 * ✅ General reorganisation. There is also some demography for religion located in the Demography section of the article. Should this be moved in to the section on religion? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose new section: Culture. To include: arts, museums, theatre, events and festivals, music scene. Possibly local media in there too.  Could include the religion and sports section within culture if you like.  Again, see Bristol for ideas.
 * ✅ There was a main article on Culture in Plymouth, but I guess no one shifted any of its information onto here. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable people: I'm not a fan of these sections. My preferred way of doing things is to scatter notable people around the rest of the article -- so sports people end up in the sport section, artists and tv personalities in the culture section, historical figures in history, and so on.  Then use the category system to make a list of them.  This is just my own preference, and you're welcome to ignore me...
 * ❌ I can see reason for it to be here, because some of the people would be rather difficult to fit else where, plus its included in the How to write about settlements page. I would much prefer there to be a list article of all the people from Plymouth as there is for Exeter, but it would be near to impossible to do alone. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: Drake's Leat, Union Street, Langage Power Station -- these all belong in the main text (if notable enough) and in categories, not the see also section. Plymouth-Banjul Challenge -- no indication what, other than the name, this has to do with Plymouth (and probably doesn't belong in the see also section either).
 * ✅ Although I've left Langage Power Station there for the moment. I've started work on a much needed Public services section in my sandbox, so I'll put it in there. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ The new section can be found in the article. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Photos:
 * Smeaton's tower: no large size. There should be loads of well lit, colourful, sharp, and full size pictures of this available.  Try asking around on flickr.
 * ✅ Looks a little bit old, but a beautiful day, none-the-less!


 * Charles Church: over exposed, soft. Salvageable, but perhaps too much effort.
 * ❌ I can't find any other images on Flickr of Geograph. Maybe someone with image skills can fix this. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Royal Citadel: wonky. Rotate a few of degrees CW.  Might be nice to get a shot on a sunny day without the fencing, though.
 * ✅ Rotated 1.8 degrees clock-wise. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Court: This shot makes Plymouth loo so very depressing. Perhaps this makes it encyclopaedic!  Could be better lit and with better contrast, and that angle is not very flattering!
 * ✅ As this has now been moved to the section on public services I've replaced it with an image of Derriford Hostpital's incenerator. The city is white with snow, but the incenterator could give it an eary depressing feeling. Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. Cheers, Joe D (t) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Docks: wonky and very soft. Rotate a few degrees CCW and consider unsharp.  White balance could be a little cooler, too.
 * Conwall Street: very grey -- a nice light day and some contrast would be good. But perhaps this is the more representative and encyclopaedic sight!
 * Drake's statue: I assumed this photo was from the 19th century. There must be something available that isn't quite so grey and washed out.

Looking good, but: Cheers, Joe D (t) 18:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "At present there isn't a power station in South West England" -- excluding wind farms, there are three currently operational power stations in the South West:
 * Seabank Power Station
 * Hinkley Point B nuclear power station
 * Oldbury nuclear power station
 * I don't really consider Bristol as part of the South West, but I'll change it to Devon and Cornwall (except wind farms). Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)