- 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 October 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becuase I am try to get it to Featured List status. I was looking at the FL candidates and found Extreme points of Bulgaria, and from that article I found this one. Any suggestions would be good, because this is my first time working with an article of this type.
Thanks, TheLeftorium 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- What are the extreme points for mainland only? Circeus (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Added! --TheLeftorium 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I enjoyed reading this. I especially like the details about the merging of the two islets and the melting of the glacier. I have a few suggestions for improvement.
- Rounding 2.41 m to 8 ft looks strange. Since you rounded the metres to the second place after the decimal, the feet should probably be rounded that way too. You can do this by changing the rounding parameter in the conversion template from |0 to |2, which will give you 7.91 ft. This problem occurs in the lead and again in the "Elevation" section. It also occurs in the table that accompanies the "Elevation" section, where 2.41 is rounded to 7.9. I'd make them all 7.91. Alternatively, it might be that 2.41 metres is overprecise. If 2.4 is more reasonable, you could change all three instances to 2.4 metres (7.9 ft).
- The Manual of Style (MoS) advises against repeating the words of the article title in the section heads. I changed "Extreme elevation" to "Elevation" to fix the problem.
- The MoS suggests spelling out the primary units in metric-imperial conversions rather than abbreviating them both. I'd suggest removing the |adj=on parameter from the conversion templates.
- I'm not sure what the "Almqvist & Wiksells stor-atlas" note is attached to, and citation 18, when clicked, hops back to it. This is confusing.
- The MoS advises against sandwiching text between parallel images on the left and right. You have such a sandwich in "Latitude and longitude". It would probably be better to stack the images on the right.
- I did a bit of minor copyediting. It was easier for me to change a few very small things than to explain them.
I hope you find these comments to be helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I think I have addressed all of your concerns. Please check the article again though to see if you think my edits were good. Cheers, TheLeftorium 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- You are welcome. Yes, the changes look good. While checking, I noticed one new nit-picky thing. The word "Kebnekaise" in the map runs over the right edge of the map on my screen. I tried adjusting the width to 200, but perhaps that makes the map too big in relation to the other images. I also wanted to eliminate the extra space between "Extreme points of" and "Sweden" in the caption, but I did not figure out how to do it. I guess what I am saying is that the map is functional but not beautiful, but I don't know how to make it beautiful. Maybe moving the word "Kebnekaise" to the left would help. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed Kebnekaise. Not sure about the extra space, though (it's not there on my resolution). Is it still there for you? --TheLeftorium 20:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Kebnekaise looks fine now. The extra space is still there, but it's a truly minor matter. Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Great, I'll close the review now. I'll probably FL nominate the article soon. --TheLeftorium 21:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)