Wikipedia:Peer review/Trams in Adelaide/archive1

Trams in Adelaide
Currently listed as a Good article but needs other sets of eyes to look over it, particularly as it only has one major editor to date. I'm working this towards FA and need advice on what is wrong or missing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CloudNine
On the whole, this article looks really good. A few comments: Hopefully that's enough for now :) Feel free to strike out comments you feel you've addressed. CloudNine 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to the change the table style to "wikitable" - it'll look nicer. See Help:Table.
 * fixed
 * It might be worth coverting the timeline into a table; see how other articles of a similar nature handle it.
 * Converted. Does seem to look better with the preceeding table.
 * Where's Adelaide? (I know where it is, but many readers might not). Add a note in the lead; perhaps after the first instance of the town's name?
 * Fixed - works better now as I've split the opening sentence into two and noted where adelaide is.
 * Check WP:MOSNUM. I have a feeling numbers such as "50" should be in word form. A minor point, however.
 * After reading the style manual on this I've made it consistent, using the words except in places like "expanding to 90 trams and 650 horses" where numerals and letters don't mix well
 * Could Kensington Gardens have it's own article? I'm not sure if Kensington Gardens (and John Stephenson Co., etc.) is a proper use of italics according to the manual of style. You may want to check usage of italics throughout the whole text.
 * Changed the sentence about the gardens. Looking at a map it's never going to have it's own article although it will be mentioned eventually in the associated suburb's one. Fixed the italics, as I couldn't find anywhere they were used per the style manual I've taken them out
 * Great Depression should be capitalized.
 * fixed
 * "Until purchased by the government, all horse tram operations were by private companies with the only government involvement the passing of legislation enabling line construction." Sentence doesn't flow too well. Could you rephrase?
 * Now reads "Until 1907, all horse tram operations were by private companies, with the government passing legislation authorising line construction". The line as written was poor and contained redundant parts.
 * tax exempt -> tax-exempt. This might only occur once in the text.
 * Fixed - only occurred once that I can find
 * Could you sum up what "turning of the sod" means? Also, it shouldn't be in italics.
 * Changed this to "official ceremony starting track construction" and removed the italics. Turning of the sod was a common phrase for the ceremonial digging up the first bit of grass during a construction project, but it is probably not widely used.
 * Changes
 * There's some punctuation missing, especially before/after footnotes. I've caught the ones I've seen. Check reference positioning also.
 * I think I've caught all of this now but will not strike this out until sure.
 * According to WP:MOSNUM, "fifty eight" -> "fifty-eight".
 * fixed
 * "Open cross-bench trams with no weather protection on the side of the cars they became unpopular during inclement weather." This sentence doesn't make much sense to me, even after "placing" a comma in the middle of it.
 * that line was awful ! Changed to "They were open trams, with no weather protection on the side of the cars, and passengers seated on cross-benches"
 * "Victoria square" -> "Victoria Square" surely?
 * fixed
 * Off topic, but the pictures and diagrams would be useful on Wikimedia Commons; you could then add a commons link in the External Links section.
 * Thanks for the detailed commentary !- I'll see what I can fix in the next day - Peripitus (Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now fixed all except for rechecking punctuation and grammer errors, thanks for the quality input - Peripitus (Talk) 01:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, SenatorsTalk 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)