Wikipedia:Peer review/Surrey Central/archive1

Surrey Central
This peer review discussion has been closed. This is an historical federal electoral district that had 2 elections. I nominated it for FL but it was not promoted (Featured list candidates/Surrey Central/archive1). It's kind of stuck in limbo—it didn't pass the FL review but I don't know what else to do with it. I'm looking for ideas (creative or technical) on how to improve such an article (electoral district articles). Thanks, maclean (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments hello again maclean. Sorry things didn't work out at FLC, but I'll add some further comments (and recommend you head to WP:GAN in due course). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a way of adding Imperial units into the infobox for the area of the district?
 * Consider merging the first three sentences, it starts quite choppy for me.
 * Rather than "Canadian House of Commons", I'd prefer to see the formal "House of Commons of Canada".
 * " formed the official opposition" followed by "forming the official opposition" is a little repetitive.
 * In 2000 it had "149,468 people" yet in 2001 (in the infobox) it had "179,158". Really?  A leap of 30,000 in one year seems incredible to me, more so when you consider that's a 20% increase.
 * Any reason you couldn't put ref [3] at the end of the sentence?
 * Do the colours of the parties mean anything in the table?
 * In fact, what is the purpose of the table? It appears that you have a lll this information already in the prose.
 * Grewal served in "2003–2004" (according to the table) but the lead says this seat was abolished in 2003.
 * Avoid blank cells in tables, if it's not applicable, say it's n/a.
 * " Votes,[1] Totals,[5] and Expenditures.[16" these aren't proper nouns so decapitalise them all.


 * Thanks for the review (again). I am investigating each of your points.
 * The template doesn't have that option. Imperial units are used in text, though.
 * Adjusted to create a more informative lead sentence.
 * Done. This also avoid a redirect.
 * Switched to "became" to avoid repetition.
 * Clarified these are population estimates for 1991, 1996, 2001 census.
 * Needs further review. The only purpose of the citation is to provide the external link - it isn't really a reference, but more of a note. I'd prefer an in-text external link but I know that is frowned upon. I may just remove it.
 * They are colours are built into the template so I cannot change it. They are just for more intuitive identification (conservatives worldwide are generally associated with blue, liberals red) so they are not explained specifically in this article.
 * Yes, it is a summary table that has evolved from these electoral district articles. Presents the same information in a different way, hopefully easier to understand, just like the lead section and infobox do. maclean (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have fixed and clarifying the article regarding the last three points maclean (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)