Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manchester[edit]

Requesting a new peer review now that Manchester has been promoted to WP:GA and looking to bring it up to WP:FA status as soon as we can. Any criticism or praise is very welcome and we, the editors of the Manchester article, already have some ideas about what to start doing which are at the bottom of Talk:Manchester but we need more ideas, ideally in list form. Thank you very much for your time and we hope to hear from someone soon. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dihydrogen Monoxide's comments[edit]

I'm feeling far too lazy to do a full review, so here are some quick notes, and another auto-pr (if anything has changed!).

  • I'm surprised to see there are no co-ordinates (Template:Coord) showing in the top right corner of the screen.
  • I think there are too many images - do we really need that many?
  • All those templates at the bottom of the article make it look ugly...
  • Could just remove the see also section, there's only one item there.
  • Sport section needs more referencing.
  • So does transport section.
  • Image at start of Landmarks section is far too big, IMO.
  • Expand the World War II section, if possible.
And now for the auto-PR!

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it has been
    • it is claimed
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article looks really good. But here are some comments (mostly on getting the right wording down):
    • In History, the "The devastation left by the IRA bombing." image could use a little better description of what we are looking at.
    • In Geography, "163.3 miles (262.8 km) northwest of London" - for such large distances, the 0.3 and 0.8 are overdoing it.
    • In Geography, the last two sentences are a little vague.
      • "not a common sight" - once every couple years? once a year? a couple days a year? are there any hard figures (measurements) on this?
      • "can be closed" - first, why (treacherous terrain, snow drifts, lack of road maintenance equipment, etc)? second, this makes it sound like it happens a lot. if that is true then fine, but the reference only describes one snow event
    • Great climate graphic.
    • In Demographics, "It boasts the second largest Jewish population in the country[50] and one of the largest Muslim populations in Greater Manchester." - so...what's wrong with Christians? Reserve the term "boasts" for when somebody is trying to promote something or for when there is a clearly undesirable alternative.
    • In Demographic, "it is now estimated that Manchester's black and minority ethnic population has..." - who estimated that?
    • In Economy, "However the city has now switched to a largely service-based economy..." - "switched" makes it seem like it happened rapidly. If so, why? Or how about 'Since 19xx, the city has developed a more service-based economy...'
    • In Economy, "The city is a growing centre for business and has recently been ranked both as the best place,[4] and the second best place to do business in the UK,[55]." - "growing centre for business" in terms of what? number of jobs, office space, GDP? It is fine, but I'd be interested in a more clear statement with who/when ranked it, why it got the ranking.
    • In Economy, "...that will serve as home to..." speculation. How about "is designed to serve as..." or just state the facts and let the reader draw that conclusion.
    • In Economy, "The city boasts large numbers of shops..." - boasts? is this hype or does it really have more than a similar-sized city?
    • In Landmarks, "...although recently there has been an upsurge in interest for building more." and "...is an example of the new surge..." - what does that mean? It isn't backed up in any references. So they built a highrise, doesn't seem to be abnormal there.
    • In nightlife, the "(see main article on Culture of Manchester)" is not needed. It is already in the main-template above it. (or you can hide it behind "several key roles")
    • There are two external links in Literature.
    • Further ideas that could be developed: dominant plants/trees, utilities (water/sewage/electrical), police/crime/emergency services. --maclean 00:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Manchester/archive1&oldid=1138563689"