Wikipedia:Peer review/Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador/archive2

Twillingate, Newfoundland and Labrador

 * 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. A while back I asked for a peer review and got several good suggestions, then yesterday the article got nominated to Good Article status and I want to take it further so I'm requesting another review of the article now. Please note that I don't want the "Newfoundland and Labrador" portion of the title to be removed, I think it's important to include the state/province name. Thanks, NeonFire (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, since you want to take it further, I will look at it from FAC criteria. What is here is good, but it needs more material and more work to become FA. Here are my suggestions for improvement: Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Featured article criteria - my concern for the article is that it seems a bit short. While length is not a criterion, comprehensiveness is.
 * If the article is expanded much more, the lead will also have to expanded to three paragraphs - see WP:LEAD
 * A model article is useful for ideas on structure, style, refs, etc. Navenby is a recent FA on a small community in the UK. It has several headers not present in this article - for example Climate.
 * References should be in numerical order, so for example ... the Dorset Eskimos, who occupied the area until the arrival of European settlers.[5][3] should be  ...the Dorset Eskimos, who occupied the area until the arrival of European settlers.[3][5]
 * I was surprised when reading the History section that there was not a specific founding date or the names of some of the earliest settlers. The infobox says it was not incorporated until 1965, but the history section does not menton this (nor does politics). There is also nothing of the etymology of the name or the French version of it.
 * Middle two paragraphs in Geography are unreferenced, for example. This would be a big problem at FAC. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. All of the "first ever" statements need cites. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * A map of the region would be useful for Geography
 * There are several very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these break up the flow of the article and should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
 * How are Christians different from Protestants and Catholics (also both Christians last I checked) in Demographics? See WP:PCR
 * Great photo of drying squid, but there is no mention of squid in the article.
 * Many of the notable people seem to be potential sources to expand the article - look at their stories and expand the history accordingly
 * Article needs a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but saw several typos ("it's" for "its" was one) - can ask at WP:LoCE or WP:PRV
 * References need to be more detailed in terms of information given - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates are useful.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)