Wikipedia:Peer review/North Coast Inland Trail/archive1

North Coast Inland Trail

I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become a Good Article soon. I've done everything to my ability to make this article as good as I can under my own standards, and my understanding of Wikipedia's quality standards. I've seen no one has paid much attention to this article as I've edited it for the past month. And that's okay, but now's the time someone should review it. I've literally added all the sources that I could possibly find that were relevant to the topic. I want someone else to see the article and edit or something at least before I nominate it at GAN.

Thanks, Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Tom (LT)

Thanks for your edits to this article :). I think this article might need a little bit of work before it can be nominated as a good article. I suggest:

• Expanding the lead to reflect all sections of the article
• Expanding the information about the history of the trail, including why it is on its current route, how it started, and how it developed, and any major figures or incidents that promoted it
• Including more information about what can be seen along the route, such as flora and fauna
• Including more information about particular figures, policies and plans played a role in the design and funding of the trail.

I hope you find this useful. Some existing good articles you can use as models can be found here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Geography_and_places. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Philmonte101 😊😄😞. I am a newbie contributor to Peer Review, so do feel free to (dis)regard my observations accordingly! And please, do not feel discouraged, as your contributions to Wikipedia really are valued, but I'm afraid I do not feel this article reaches GA standard yet. In fact, I have downgraded it from a B-class to a C-class article as I really don't think it gives a complete picture to readers of the Trail's significance, and I support what Tom (LT) suggested. It probably achieves a C-class rating by meeting this description: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Clearly, the Trail itself is incomplete, and I suggest you might wait a while until further details become available. In particular what landscapes, landforms and biodiversity can be encountered along the way? If you feel the Trail is important enough, why not create and include your own map of the trail's route to show where it goes? This is quite easy to do (if time-consuming). Bing aerial maps and OpenStreetMap can both be legitimately used to make a route map in, say, Powerpoint, which can be saved as a jpg and uploaded to Commons. Just paste into PP a screenshot or two saved from an acceptable source; overlay the key features with lines drawn in Powerpoint, then delete the background images. Save this as a jpeg, and you're sorted. Here's one I created by this means which shows the basic geographical features of an area. Maybe you could do the same with the trail route? I suggest you try to include one or two images of the trail, as well. I noted with some concern that two images you recently uploaded to Commons have been flagged for deletion. I have left feedback expressing grounds for rejecting both proposals. Please do not be disheartened if GA status of an article seems an unattainable target. I've been editing for over 5 years and only now feel able to submit content to be assessed at this level. Parkywiki (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree - please don't feel disheartened, some articles take 2-3 years before they are ready :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)