Wikipedia:Peer review/Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador/archive1

Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador

The article is dreadfully written. Among the problems that I could point out are:

atrocious grammar and syntax leading to incomprehensibility in places;
preposterous diction which would do a bureaucrat proud;
use of unexplained technical terms that make reading difficult for the uninitiated;
use of Imperial measurements throughout without conversions to SI.
at least one reference to a thing that doesn't exist (namely the railway -- that packed up years ago).

It's a big job, and I may get around to it myself someday. Right now, though, this is an AWFUL article.Kelisi 01:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. I will do what I can.Silverchemist 06:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated review

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

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 900 mi, use 900 mi, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 900 mi.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 30 km.
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.^[?]
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.^[?]
This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
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, DrKiernan 16:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please rename or eliminate the heading under Climate: Notes about the graphs. If I was just to look at the table of contents for some interesting reading, this just doesn't make any sense. As it turns out it is just a footnote type clarification, so should not be part of the outline of the whole article. It is not a subject to be introduced in the introduction for example.

Also under the section of Climate, their should either be no sub sections as one sentence should have an expand tag. So reword the Climate to prose, without sub headings, or expand the short guys. Same with the Section Industry and Economy. the sub sections are itsy bitsy, so the main section could be written as prose, or the subs filled out.

Rephrase the sentence with i.e. Labrador is an irregular shape: the western part of its border with Quebec is drainage divide for the Labrador Peninsula i.e. land drained by rivers that flow into the Atlantic Ocean are part of Labrador, the rest belongs to Quebec. and don't use i.e.

Section Fresh Water is not referenced, however, the majority of the article is wonderfully referenced for the most part which is nice to see.

Coyotes are a very recent addition to the fauna of Newfoundland, possibly crossing the ice from Cape Breton Island in the 1980s possibly? did they or didn't they. As an encyclopedia, state what happened. or why you have added it here. this expert...proposes that...or a theory by this university is that coyotes... Give it some substance or don't mention it.

Section Population could relate current demographics, and population size, and urban areas/major placenames.

Is there any thing happening in relation to Zoogeography or Biogeography

As far as the coverage of the topic geography of this place, the notable items are covered, and referenced.

Are there any national parks?

The references don't appear consistent- sometimes the URL shows, sometimes the web page title. SriMesh | talk 04:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]