Wikipedia:Peer review/Edmonton/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to be able to get this article up to FA status and this would be a step towards it.

Thanks, Cheers Kyle1278 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by User:LinguistAtLarge

Let my start off saying I think this article is very good as it is, and I don't see a lot I don't like. After a cursory scan of the article, I have the following suggestions: (These are just my personal opinion or suggestions-- use your own good judgement before following them).

Education section - I'd put K-12 before postsecondary-- seems more logical to me.

Done

There's a left-aligned image under a sub heading (===) (in the infrastruction section) See MOS:IMAGES.

Done

The panoramic image that goes the width of the screen might not be appropriate.
The caption text for a few of the images, while good and descriptive, seems a bit on the long side. WP:CAPTIONS. Captions should be concise.
I don't know if the dollar amounts should be specified as Canadian dollars or not. But there might be confusion whether they are CAD or USD.
The weather averages table sort of jumps out at me as being overbearing, but I'm not sure what should/could be done about that.
Make sure the article makes good use of a summary style WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. So for each section you have a good summary of important information, while linking to the main article on the topic. I see there are already links to the "main article" for many of the sections, but perhaps the information can be summarized better so as to slightly shorten the article.
I'd like to see a larger image in the infobox. Maybe use the same image as now, but zoom in on the center section.

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the suggestions. Cheers Kyle1278 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]