Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Sarnia/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Sarnia edit

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I failed at featured article status. Comments from one of the editors were harsh and condescending, so I am looking for constructive criticism that does not push the boundaries of AGF. Please help me make this article of featured article quality. I've put a LOT of hours into it and want to succeed.

Thanks, There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


General note: Please do not use level-2 headings to subdivide peer review pages, as this creates difficulties on the WP:PR page. I have amended them to level-4, which is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitations to Help edit

To all the people to whom I have sent invitations, I would be very appreciative if you gave me some constructive input on this article peer review.

Sincerely, There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvements Already Done edit

Added many more citations and references, cleaned up punctuation and citation typos, misspellings, and mistakes, and improved prose in most parts of the article to a readability score of at least grade 11. Because of its extremely straightforward nature, however, the Demographics section remains readability score of grade 4. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Reaching FA Status edit

Initial comments from Brianboulton edit

My time is restricted at the moment, so I can't give a full review right now. However, there are several points that require attention in the lead section:

  • You should move the left-aligned image into the body of the article, or delete it; this nonstandard arrangement of the lead section wll not be accepted at FAC.   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead should act as a means of drawing readers into the article. The confusion of population figures in the opening sentence doesn't do this. Mention one figure (the one you think most representative), and introduce the others in the appropriate section of the main text.   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is at present too much trivial information in the lead: "which are known as "salties"; "it once adorned the back of the Canadian $10 note"; "Sarnia's air exceeded this standard on only one day during 2011". These are relevant facts, but not of sufficient importance to find themselves in the lead.
Removed salties reference and inserted it later in the article, removed 10 dollar reference and inserted it later in the article, removed reference to Sarnia's air and inserted it later in the article.  Done
  • It is important that lead information be given in a form which makes sense to the general reader. The sentence: "The Canada Wide Daily Standard for particulate matter and ozone, regulation PM2.5, is 30 micrograms per cubic metre" is incomprehensible to the vast majority. For example, what is "particulate matter"? If this is a statement about pollution levels, its significance is at present unclear.
Added "airborne pollution" to this sentence for further clarification and moved it to the environmental subsection of the Economy and Infrastructure section.   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The general nature of the lead should be to summarize the overall content of the article, rather than to present a few significant facts. Everything in the lead should be amplified in the main text, and all the main areas of the article should be represented in the lead. I don't think the present lead fulfills its supposed function; some of the material does not seem to be mentioned in the rest of the article (the "particulates" sentence for example, and the "45 percent" information). Likewise, there is a lot of detail in the article (climate, culture etc) that is not represented in the lead.
Have to write some articles on another website for money right now, but will get back to improving the lead section later. Hope you like and approve of the changes I made by shifting some of the lead's information later in the article. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redid the lead paragraph to include summaries of what follows and added citations to support those changes per WP:LEDE. Changed later refs to "ref names" to avoid duplication. Let me know what you think, Brianboulton and others!   DoneThere can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few tweaks to the prose, but I think the lead needs a substantial redraft to address the points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Brian! Working it now. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments edit

Name
  • "Channel Island" should be linked. For the benefit of your general readers I would say "British Channel Island of Guernsey"   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "moniker" is basically slang & does not read well in encyclopedic prose   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three links to Selden in the same line; only one is required   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from the Mare Clausum is overlong, and its quaint English is tiresome to read. Why not paraphrase it, with just a few words of direct quotation for effect?   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Claims that Sarnia instead derives from the older name of Sark are incorrect as shown by Berry's 1814 treatise on the History of Guernsey." The reader will not know who "Berry" is, so you need to introduce him properly. Also, the sentence needs to be reworded for encyclopedic neutrality.   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "channel islands" uncapitalised?   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "as well" at the end of the paragraph are redundant.   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that your explanation of the origin of the name comes across very clearly in this paragraph, and it might be as well to reconsider your wording.
  • The final paragraph is muddled, with confusing chronology and overdetailing. Something like the following might serve better:
"In 1829 Sir John Colborne, a former governor of Guernsey, was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. In this capacity, in 1835 he visited two small settlements that had been laid out on the shores of Lake Huron. One of these, named "Grand Rapids", consisted then of 44 taxpayers, nine frame houses, four log houses, two brick dwellings, two taverns and three stores. The villagers wished to change its name but were unable to agree on an alternative; Sir John Colborne suggested "Port Sarnia". On 4 January 1836, this name was formally adopted by a vote of 26 to 16, and the neighbouring village was named "Moore" after the British military hero Sir John Moore."
You could then add the details about the change from "Port Sarnia" to Sarnia, but any other information is merely padding.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Is there a link for "First Nations peoples"? The term is unfamiliar in the UK   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for as many as 10,000 years" → "for at least 10,000 years"   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a jump in your narrative of around 1000 years, from AD 796 to the 18th century. Did nothing happen in all that time? — Found enough to get to 1600. Will be looking for more.
  • "new continent"? From whose perspective?   Done Wording removed. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link on loyalists is unhelpful. To whom were these settlers loyal?   Done Removed loyalists link. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can residents of a town pass "Acts"? That surely, is the job of national or state legislatures. — That is what the legislation was called.
  • "the first tunnel ever constructed under a river". I don't think so: see Thames Tunnel, Tower Subway – and that's just under the Thames.   Done It was the first railroad tunnel under a river. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the information about the Paul M Tellier tunnel at this stage? The section needs to have a clear chronology.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read on, I find the history increasingly cluttered with anecdotes. What we want in an encyclopedia article is a broad-brush summary of the town's history, which enables us to observe the growth and development of the town from its small beginnings until the present day. Mackenzie's story has little to do with the development of Sarnia. I would delete this paragraph - in fact, I'd delete everything after "...in 1890, by the Grand Trunk Railway" up to the paragraph beginning "Canada Steamship Lines..."   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mix the royal visit into the shipping history which provides important reasons why the town grew; I might make a brief mention of the royals in the "Name" section, if the "Imperial City" name stuck. If it didn't, I'd omit this detail.   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as I can go at the moment. I will revisit when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more, to be going on with edit

Geography

Geographic information needs to be precise. "where Lake Huron empties into the St. Clair River" is meaningless to most people – who might, like me, also wonder how a lake empties into a river rather than the other way round. Also, "quite flat" is vague.   Done Added a link showing the topography. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Canadian Shield" needs linking, as do terms such as "alluvial" and "moraines".   Done Added a link showing the sediment composition. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distances should be given in miles as well as in kilometres.   Done Added Convert template.
Neighbourhoods
  • "part of the affluent North End..." → "part of the affluent North End of Sarnia"   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any connection between the lost village you call "Blue Water" and the village of Bluewater in the same area?
No, they are not the same. The village of Blue Water no longer exists. Bluewater, Ontario was created by the province in 2001. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an historian named Lorraine Williams": "an historian", while technically correct, is no longer idiomatic in British English - are you sure it is in Canadian English?
Yes, "an historian" is still part of Canadian English. Check the following link http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/ns/melanson/natcul/Dunn.aspx I did, however, remove the word an before historian because I used an befor historical. It made more sense to simply say "historian Lorraine Williams." There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "named" is unnecessary; I would prefer to see "a historian, Lorraine Williams..."   Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Climate
I already explained the way the lake moderates the city's climate in the lead, so I removed that part of the sentence in the Climate section. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The huge white space between the climate text and the table has to be eliminated. This means some rigorous editing of your images; I've indicated before that the article is, in my view, carrying too many pics, and this is the result.  Done There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Sarnia/archive2&oldid=565597113"