Wikipedia:Peer review/Halifax Regional Municipality/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because that at the wikiproject Cities, it said that it is a start class article but it should be a higher class.
Thanks, ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis comments
[edit]- The rating can be easily changed. I've just moved the article to a C, mostly due to lack of sourcing, easily could be made a B
- My initial feeling from the article is that it is lacking in sources. There's plenty of information in this article, quite good, but some sections lack a single source.
- Firstly, the lead has sources which it doesn't need. Per WP:Lead the lead should be a reflection of the text, and as such if figures are cited in the text they don't need citing in the lead. In my opinion they actually make the lead less attractive. Make sure the information cited in the lead is in the text, and that it is cited in the text.
- The history section has room for expansion. I think it should probably have 4-5 decent paragraphs, but that of course depends on information available. From looking at the article, I think a quick overview of the first settlements would be useful, population economic base etc. I'd also include a summary of changes in higher administration, such as why it was established as the capital of Nova Scotia, when it became part of Canada, etc. All this should of course be sourced.
- Geography is good in terms of scope. Perhaps some sections can be clarified, for example the second paragraph of the urban-rural section. I'm unsure how most municipalities with a metropolitan area have expanded. Information about referendum is probably better suited to History section.
- I'm not sure what's up with demographics. Having those three tables so close doesn't seem to be good formatting. It might be worth converting the population growth table into prose, adding to the current couple of sentences (which I've moved to the top of the section).
- Economy can be expanded, and could probably use some statistics. A breakdown per sector would be useful, maybe with a paragraph for each.
- The government section could perhaps name the top figures of administration. It might also be worth moving some local government information from the geography section to here.
- I'd recommend some slight reformatting.
- Moving education to a level 3 section under demographics
- Moving sport and media to level 3 sections under culture.
- Major Parks may belong under geography.
- Transportation and Buildings and Structures may be subsumed under a larger header, such as infrastructure.
In summary, it's an article with a nice wide scope, but which could include slightly more detail (it is a very low level administrative region) and could use a great deal more sourcing. Cheers, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)