- The previous peer review is found at Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive3
Much work has been put into this article in the last few weeks and it is now much more concise and focussed that previously. References have been filled in since the last review, and several POV disputes have been succesfully resolved. Before applying for GA again, a review seems like the sensible option, in order to get an outside look on exactly how it can be improved. DJR (Talk) 20:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sectioning of the article is not as per the guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. However, those are not hard and fasr rules. Srill, those are somewhat tested as many articles following those guidelines have become FA.
- History: Sebsections should be removed. Should be summarised, with a link to History of London, which it already has anyway.
- "Demographics" may be made into a new section.
- "Education" may be made into a new section.
- "Sports" also may comprise a new section.
- Rest of the present subsections under "Society and culture" should be summarised, rather than having sub-sub-headings.
- In "films" subsection, is there any need to mention London appeared in whivh films? A city as London will of course appear in a lot of movies. Rather the focus should have been on the cinema production of London, with mention of notable directors/actors may be. Amd also cinematic movements that started from London, if any. And cinema schools. Almost similar comment apply to Literature. You cant stop counting if you think of the number of works on the backdrop of London. These sections should have discussed the Londoners who are famous writers ets. and their very famous works (ehich might be based on London). Also many literary institutions of London may ve discussed. In gist, not "London in cinema" or "London in literature", rather "Cinema of London" and "Literature of London".
- In "Education" one may wish to see what pattern is followed in London.
- "Major new construction" should be removed.
- If possible, try to shorten "Tourism". It would have been even better to re-structure/relocate the content of the this section intelligently to other sections eg monyments. museaums etc under culture. However, it is quite difficult to do, due to the information overload.
- As a whole, the impression is the editors could not decide what to leave sp that they congested as much info as possible to this article, despite there being so many nice daughter articles.
- Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- An infobox would be nice. It's not to hard to do, and Template:Infobox_City is a good start. I could work on it.--Enano275 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- That would be much appreciated - I started trying to sort out an infobox, but it got a bit messy. London's political system seems to differ somewhat from many other cities. --Dave A 10:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to start working on it, but I got very confused about the current division of London. I want to make sure I don't confuse any facts of London with facts of Greater London. If you could give me a source with summarized information of the city I could do it quickly. --Enano275 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- That would be much appreciated - I started trying to sort out an infobox, but it got a bit messy. London's political system seems to differ somewhat from many other cities. --Dave A 10:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hahaha! I mentioned this earlier at Talk:London#Good/featured article? - the whole infobox idea is based around the existence of simple answers to simple fields. Unfortunately, just like so much else in the UK, this is not possible. The fields set up in infoboxes are far to ambiguous with relation to the structure of London, and London has no official means of calculating anything. The only information you can take is that of Greater London, but that already has its own infobox and is not the same thing as London. I would also hasten to add that the creation of an infobox would also result in edit wars in extremis, as random people decide that they disagree with the generalisation that enabled a certain result for a certain field. It's not going to be easy. Especially given that all the real information has already been covered in Greater London. DJR (Talk) 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had actually added an infobox, but after reading your reply I think it could be removed. The thing is that a city such as important as London looks very strange without and infobox. Since Greater London is the political representation of London, have you thought about merging Greater London into the government section of London? I don't know about the UK enough to put my vote on something like this, but it should be discussed. --Enano275 23:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- It has been discussed, but just a quick read of London#Defining London will illustrate that this in itself is incorrect - Greater London's boroughs do not include the City of London, which is sui generis. To put it simply (and highly controversially), London verges on not being a city - merely a concept of a city that contains a two individual cities and forms that metropolitan basis for a city. The whole thing's a disaster! DJR (Talk) 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hahaha! I mentioned this earlier at Talk:London#Good/featured article? - the whole infobox idea is based around the existence of simple answers to simple fields. Unfortunately, just like so much else in the UK, this is not possible. The fields set up in infoboxes are far to ambiguous with relation to the structure of London, and London has no official means of calculating anything. The only information you can take is that of Greater London, but that already has its own infobox and is not the same thing as London. I would also hasten to add that the creation of an infobox would also result in edit wars in extremis, as random people decide that they disagree with the generalisation that enabled a certain result for a certain field. It's not going to be easy. Especially given that all the real information has already been covered in Greater London. DJR (Talk) 23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)