Wikipedia:Peer review/Poole/archive1

Poole

• 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 September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently achieved GA status and I would like advice on how to further improve it towards FA status. Any feedback, suggestions and help would be appreciated.

Thanks, BarretBonden (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's very nice, I could find no major problems and without reading the entire thing, I couldn't even find any minor ones except that the complete citation information for the Cullingford reference shows up with the first citation which is nice (even though it is in the later section it's nice to have there) while it doesn't for the first use of the Legg reference. Overall, I'd say if you have the time, de-list it from PR and list it at FAC. People may find things you need to fix there with language and so forth, but I'm fairly confident you can fix anything that comes up. The balance of coverage is nice, the comprehensiveness is nice. Well done. - Taxman ^Talk 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. BarretBonden (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article, and it is nearly ready for a trip to FAC. I have a few minor suggestions for improvement that you might consider before seeking promotion.

• Digits modifying nouns need to be held together by no-break codes. Otherwise they break apart on some computer monitors and slow the readers down. Examples in the History section are "2,500 years" and "3rd century". Please see WP:NBSP.
• En dashes are used in page ranges rather than hyphens. For example, "Sydenham (p.69-71)" in the References and notes section should be "Sydenham (p.69–71)".
• Photo captions that are complete sentences need a terminal period. Captions that are sentence fragments get no terminal period. Captions that contain at least one complete sentence plus a fragment or fragments get a terminal period after each. I see several captions that need a period, although many others are fine as is.
• The caption, "Poole Quay, once a busy centre of maritime trade, it has become increasingly popular with tourists" should probably be "Poole Quay, once a busy centre of maritime trade, has become increasingly popular with tourists."
• The caption, "The Guildhall, built in 1761, it now functions as a Register Office" should probably be "The Guildhall, built in 1761, functions as a Register Office."
• This section needs a fix: "The trade was a three-cornered route; ships sailed to Newfoundland loaded with salt and provisions. Caught, dried, and salted, the fish was brought back to ports in Europe before returning to Poole with wine, olive oil and salt." I might suggest: "...ships sailed to Newfoundland with salt and provisions, then carried dried and salted fish to Europe before returning to Poole with wine, olive oil, and salt."
• Usually, unless they start a sentence, numbers from 10 up are given in digits. I'd suggest changing "rescue flotilla of sixty cutters" to "rescue flotilla of 60 cutters", for example. Ditto for 15 sheriffs in the next section. You might find more of these here and there.
• Orphan paragraphs like the one at the end of the "Coat of arms" section are usually frowned upon. I'd suggest merging it with the paragraph above.
• The preferred unit for rainfall is the millimetre rather than the centimetre. I'd suggest changing the numbers in climate chart to reflect this.
• In "Demography", a word might be missing from this phrase: "The town has a built-up of... " Should it be "built-up area of"?
• It's customary to arrange the embedded citations, when they occur in multiples in the same place, in ascending order. Most of the existing citations are not multiples, but I see a couple of multiples that should be flip-flopped. These are 17 and 15 after "terraced housing" in the "History" section and 83 and 81 after "ceremonies" in the "Guildhall" section.
• Other small problems comparable to some of those I've mentioned above might be detected and fixed by a final top-to-bottom copyedit by someone with a fresh eye. I don't think there's a lot to fix, but it would be good to get the number of nit-picky errors as close to zero as possible before heading to FAC.

If you have questions about any of my comments, please post a note here. I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and comments. BarretBonden (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)