Wikipedia:Peer review/Ratanakiri Province/archive1

Ratanakiri Province edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch 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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Seeking input before a possible FAC nom. I think the article is pretty much done, though I have a handful of sources to incorporate. (And I need to print it out for a hard-copy copy-edit). This just went through GA successfully, and I have incorporated the few comments I received from that process. ]

Thanks, Mangostar (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nicely done overall, but there are some tweaks needed before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see Land tenure in the lead and other headers seem to be missing or under represented. Please see WP:LEAD
The use of (For more information, see Land tenure, below.) and other similar phrases may be seen as a problem at FAC.

I'm not sure what else could be done there. I think it is useful because many areas overlap. In a developing country, economy and culture are intertwined to an extent that is not the case in other places. I am currently trying to work out how to discuss logging and related issues, which straddle geography, economics, and human rights type issues. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs could be cleaned up a bit - example: Long after the fall of the Khmer Rouge regime, however, Khmer Rouge rebels remained in the forests of Ratanakiri.[28][29] Rebels largely surrendered their arms in the 1990s, though attacks along provincial roads continued until 2002.[29][28] If the exact same refs are used for two sentences in a row (and there is not a quote in the first sentence) then is almost cetainly OK to just have one set of refs at the end of the two (or more) sentences. Also refs should be in numerical order, so ... attacks along provincial roads continued until 2002.[28][29]

It's a personal preference of mine that every sentence should be cited, because it makes it clear that no sentences have been stuck in (especially as they age) without references. If this is a major problem I could change it, but I think a good share of articles cite every sentence. I agree that I need to rearrange refs, but I was waiting until everything was done because the refs are occasionally reordered with new additions. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the citations themselves, the use of op cit will also likely be challenged at FAC. Most people use a modified MLA or Harvard style, with a Bibliography giving the full source information and the ref giving the author's name, date if needed, and page(s). See the refs in Joseph Priestley House for one example of this.

I considered but rejected this idea, because there are relatively few sources that are used more than once or for more than one page. It seemed least disruptive to have a few op cits than to be constantly referring people to another section unnecessarily. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colors in the graph "Ethnic groups in Ratanakiri (1998)" must mean something but this is not clearly explained.

Yes, I should get on that. I basically put all Khmer Loeu groups as blue, but I don't think the template has the functionality to explain this. I may need to tweak the template. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does! This is done. Mangostar (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like to see the actual numbers (here as X, Y and Z) so In 1998, when the most recent national census was conducted, Ratanakiri made up 0.8% of Cambodia's total population [of X], with a population density [of Y] approximately 15% of the national average [of Z].[50]

I made it vague on purpose, because of outdated data. The province population number I am using is a 2004 estimate, which is much higher than the 1998 census (there has been a lot of in-migration since the last census). Since there is no corresponding country population estimate for 2004, I didn't want to give exact density figure comparisons for 1998 that would be inconsistent with the 2004 population estimate given. Mangostar (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it usual to have a period and space after "P" to show a page number, so ^ a b Vajpeyi, op cit., p127. would be ^ a b Vajpeyi, op cit., p. 127.
- Done. Mangostar (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A model article is useful to look at - there are many Geography FAs and some should give you ideas on style, structure, refs. etc.
Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Per WP:FN, we don't use op. cit. or other abbreviations in the footnotes.
- Please don't use acroynyms in the footnotes. Not everyone is going to know what IUCN or others are.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)