Talk:Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I like doing geography articles, as I can learn something new, and it's a shame this one has been in the queue for so long, so I'll try and review it as best I can. I've only ever been to Quebec, but I'd like to explore more of rural Canada if I ever get the opportunity.

Lead

• The article is 100K of text. That's just too long for an article. I appreciate you've done a lot of research into Willow Bunch, but for somebody who just wants to know a bit about it, they might be daunted by all the information. Ideally, you want an article about half of that size. The lead can then be tailored for people who just want a cursory introduction to the subject - and for a 50K article, about 3 to 4 paragraphs should suffice.
• "Previous names for Willow Bunch have been Hart-Rouge and Talle-de-Saules" - this information isn't repeated in the body. See above comment

Specific comments for the body will follow Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Prehistory

• There were a few malformed URLs for references here. I've fixed those.
• "About 19 kilometres north-west of Willow Bunch is one of Saskatchewan’s biggest archaeological mysteries." - the trouble with a phrase like "biggest archaeological mysteries" is it teases the reader into information without really explaining what it is. I think it might be better if this opening sentence was removed, or possibly replaced by one saying how long Willow Bunch has been settled for.
• Similarly, I think The St. Victors Petroglyph site is probably worth putting in a standalone article as it's a bit off-topic for this article, particularly as one of the sources says it is more a feature of Saskatchewan generally than Willow Bunch specifically
• "The carvings are located on a sandstone cliff that is elevated at 950m" - this claim is not in the source given
• "The uniqueness of the plateau is characterized by being only one of five sites in Canada where petroglyphs are on a horizontal structure of a rock" - the claim being only one of five sites is not in the source given
• "The petroglyphs are dominated by images of the plains grizzly bear" - this claim is not in the source given. What I mean by that (and the related sources above) is that when you specify a web source, you must put the exact page that the claim can be found. I'm not particularly disputing anything in the text, but one of the fundamental parts of the Good Article criteria is that the entire article must be as easily verifiable as possible.
• "while the northern part of the province would have remained under glacial ice." - without a good source explaining which science or geography related paper has ascertained this, this claim would be unsourced original research and not acceptable

First people

• "The land in Saskatchewan was first believed to been populated by Paleo-Indians around 9,500 BCE" - again, without a source this is original research and can't be used
• This section talks more about settlement in Saskatchewan generally than Willow Bunch specifically. This information would sit better on a History of Saskatchewan article
• This section has a few unsourced paragraphs. Generally, for a Good Article you should cite as much as possible, except for very obvious claims that any reader anywhere in the world would not be surprised at

The Métis of Willow Bunch

• This section is the first mention (outside a brief namecheck in the lead) where the Métis people are mentioned. I appreciate the previous sections go into the native population in some depth, but a non-historian may be confused by the sudden mention of the name
• "Jean-Louis Legaré set up a trading post in Willow Bunch" - do we know anything else about Jean-Louis Legaré? Who was he, or do we just know he was an early trader?

“Talle de Saule”

• There are some unsourced paragraphs here and the quotation is a little too long. It may be better to represent this as prose.
• "These are some of the family names belonging to the first Métis settlers" - I think this information is a little overlong and probably not necessary

The Métis today

• This section has one unsourced paragraph and several ends of paragraphs that are unsourced

Palace Theater Closes

• This section is unsourced aside from an external link in the middle of the prose. Links to external sites should generally sit at the bottom of an article unless they are web references

Expansion of the Credit Union

• This section is unsourced

Homecoming 1980

• This section is unsourced

Willow Bunch School

• This section has one paragraph that is only partially sourced

Sitting Bull

• "The famous Sioux leader Sitting Bull" - "famous" is a loaded word and should be avoided in a GA
• Much of this information would sit better in Sitting Bull's own article

Edouard Beaupré: The Willow Bunch Giant

• As above, this information would sit better in a separate article

Scientific study

• This section is completely unsourced, and as it is potentially controversial information this is particularly problematic

Population characteristics

• The charts here would sit better integrated with the prose (you can use the "thumb" parameter the alignment as "left" or "right" instead of "centre" within images to do this)
• "Located SE of Assiniboia on Highway 36 Willow Bunch is one of the oldest settled towns in Saskatchewan" - I think this information needs to go right up front in the lead, it's a good introduction to the town

French education struggle

• This section name is problematic - "struggle" doesn't imply a neutral point of view and should be reworded

References

• This section has a maintenance tag

Summary

• I admit I haven't looked through the article as thoroughly as I would normally do on a GA review, but I think a general problem is a lack of focus. You've certainly done an admirable job in getting as much information about Willow Bunch into the article as possible, but I think there's too much information, and much of it can be split into existing articles easily. The unsourced paragraphs and malformed references are additional problems.

So I'm afraid I don't think it's going to be possible for things to improved to meet the GA criteria at this time. However, what I can do is re-assess the article (currently marked as "start-class") as B-class, as it is certainly rich in information, just not really written in the house style that regular readers of other GAs would expect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)