Wikipedia:Peer review/Scarborough, Ontario/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Scarborough, Ontario)
The article has undergone dramatic improvement in the last two months or so, and I'm sort of stuck on how to improve it further. I suspect there's a need for a little more history and more economy, but I'm not sure - and beyond that, I'm really not sure. There's a lot of problems in working out what belongs here given its relationship to Toronto. Anyways, I want to keep pushing it up to at least good status, so I really appreciate any comments. I took it past Requests for Feedback, but what I got there was that it looked pretty decent, a few minor points I worked on were gained. So I'm trying it here. I would really appreciate any feedback I can get. WilyD 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions WilyD 18:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm impressed. Six months or so ago, this article was really quite poor, notable mainly for linkspam and reversion wars. I commend the editors who have put the time and effort necessary to bring it to this level. I am going to do some very minor copyediting, rather than list comments on wording and sentence structure here (revert anything objectionable). Other than that, my only comments are:
- - Some thought might be given to making the images somewhat larger.
- - The Toronto Zoo is one of Scarborough's major attractions. Too bad the image used in this article is of the zoo's admission booths. I understand the problem, though -- I couldn't locate a better image here on in the Commons. You may wish to consider posting over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto to see if anyone can upload some better images.
- - I found the reference to Canada Post in the lead paragraph to be odd. Such a trivial piece of information for the opening paragraph. Moreover, it's hardly unique to Scarborough -- Canada Post quite often uses names of former municipalities (i.e. Kanata) or even areas that were never separate municipalities (i.e Downsview) for postal addresses. Since it's an administrative practice of Canada Post throughout the country, and has nothing to do with Scarborough per se, it seems unusual to give it such prominence in the article. If the consensus is to retain the information in the lead paragraph, however, then thought should be given to rewording it because it is somewhat unclear (perhaps "..., and the name continues to be used for postal addresses.").
- - The lead paragraph requires some indication of why Scarborough is notable or interesting. Something like "Scarborough is known for its multicultural character, and is said to be the greenest and leafiest part of Toronto" (referencing information detailed later in the article). Otherwhise, an opening para. that focuses solely on amalgamation and Scarborough's boundaries is somewhat bland. Skeezix1000 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- -Okay, thanks for the tips. As far as photos go, I agree it's not the best Zoo picture. Getting good pictures is likely to be nontrivial, since the Zoo admission price isn't chump change. I may have some old ones somewhere. But that'll take time to address.
- -I share your sentiment about the Canada post reference a bit. I think it may be there more because it's unclear where else to put it - I would welcome suggestions. Perhaps it can be dropped altogether, but even though this doesn't make it unique to Canadian communities, it sheds light on an apparent elevated status of community that Scarborough gets - even if many others do to.
- -As for the blandness of the opening, I will admit it has been left essentially untouched during the recent revisions of the articles, and could use some reworking. Thanks
- WilyD 05:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've reworked the opening, but I'm still not satisfied. WilyD 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- -On the issue of image size - I'm not sure if there's a good way to work with different displays. All the images are just thumb with no size specified - I had hoped that this would lead to a semi-smart display pattern - am I nuts? is there a good way to do it, or just guess? WilyD 01:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- This article is certainly alot better than it used to be. However, it reads a little bit like a travelogue, ie. it's kind of bland. There is no real discussion of the urban and social problems that occur in Scarborough. I also note that the article history shows there is still an apologist for the article still at work, namely User:Dscarborough, who still persists in removing anything that he perceives as a negative comment. Until that stops the article will lack balance. --Bombycil 23:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what kind of discussion you're looking for - one of the real problems I find myself in continuously in this article is that with Scarborough as a community in Toronto, things that affect Scarborough in a way un-unique from how they affect Toronto are hard to work with - I never have any idea of how deep to go into them, whether to just link to the Toronto discussion or what.
- Specific issues that need to be mentioned. I don't think it matters whether these problems are specific to Scarborough or not. They still affect the area and so they should be discussed:
- gang related crime, eg. Malvern problems (can be moved to history if necessary)
- concentration of immigrant communities within Scarborough
- marijuana grow-ops that plague certain neighbourhoods
- economic disinvestment in the Warden/Kennedy corridors
- development pressures on the Rouge Valley
- erosion issues on the Scarborough bluffs
- water quality pollution issues on Highland Creek, --Bombycil 18:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Specific issues that need to be mentioned. I don't think it matters whether these problems are specific to Scarborough or not. They still affect the area and so they should be discussed:
- As for D, I'm not sure here whether your complaint is fair. Every piece of content he or she has wanted removed was seperately argued against by either myself or User:Mindmatrix. Beyond that, the rest of the content D was opposed to remains in the article. WilyD 16:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what kind of discussion you're looking for - one of the real problems I find myself in continuously in this article is that with Scarborough as a community in Toronto, things that affect Scarborough in a way un-unique from how they affect Toronto are hard to work with - I never have any idea of how deep to go into them, whether to just link to the Toronto discussion or what.
The opening paragraph should be reworded as per Skeezix makes much sense. To Bobmbycil; WilyD and Mindmatrix have endeavoured to competently review every disagreement, and the article is fair and balanced. In fact, if you wanted to list the crime data per police division, that should be done on the larger Toronto page (Toronoto Neighbourhoods?), and you might actually be surprised that '42 Division whrere Malvern is located in, is on a per capita basis, amongst the safest divisions in the entire city' - former 42 Division Sargent Tony Warr. I could call Tony and ask him to email you a direct quote if you would like. Dscarborough 20:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC) .
- malvern gangs are sort of notorious throughout toronto, (at least amongst people i know) so perhaps they should have some mention