Wikipedia:Peer review/Melville Island (Nova Scotia)/archive1

Melville Island (Nova Scotia)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for feedback on how to improve it, and specifically whether any major aspect of the topic is missing or neglected. Please be as critical as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (not expecting to find any ref errors!)

I would link "Northwest Arm" as I had to Google it to see what it meant in this context.
"southeast of Regatta Point." that Regatta Point is in Tasmania. Is that what you meant? Check throughout.
Be consistent with what you link to for Deadman's Island.
I'm not sure what "thin" soil is, but I guess that'll become clear.
"a "fjord-like inlet" between" I thought in FAs we had to attribute quotes to people, sources etc, not just cite them?
"on a northwest-southeast-trending fracture " check with WP:DASH that hyphenation should be used here and not en-dashes.
"The surrounding water is salty ... " new para, maybe "The water surround Melville Island is salty.."
"a haulout shed, a "salt training centre"," what are these?

Explained haulout shed, but "salt training centre" I don't know, that's just what the source calls it.

"1,500 millimetres" why not just mm?
" for ₤65" would use £ and link it to British pound.
"After the 1793 beheading of Louis XVI " passive, why not the active " After Louis XVI of France was beheaded in 1793, ..."?

Because the beheading is the subject, not the verb - the beheading (of Louis in 1793) sparked a war.

St. Domingo is usually just called Santo Domingo.

Link didn't go to the right place - Santo Domingo is something else.

Well, you're the expert, but I normally expect to see refs in numerical order (Napoleon's Hundred Days.[33][18] )...

I can't for the life of me find the discussion, but a while back it was decided that non-numerical order could be used when the refs support different points in the sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that discussion, please link me to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I still can't find it - it was at least a couple of months ago, and I don't even recall on which page, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"by John Toler" who's he and why is he important enough to be mentioned but not have an article or be redlinked?
"a pound each" previously all units have been "metric (imperial)" so you may wish to consider that here.

Weight of pound wasn't defined in relation to the kilogram until 1878

So perhaps include conversions to modern units as you have done throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when you mention "gill"...
" by the US government." be traditional and go for "United States government..."
Ref 74, isn't New York Times actually The New York Times?

Yes, but either can be used in refs so long as it's consistent

Shouldn't you use the actual name of the work rather than an incorrect version of the name? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 117, shouldn't that year range take a en-dash?
Ref 119, you're the expert, but that doesn't have an accessdate, archive date etc.

Doesn't need them - online copy of a book, not a web-only source

I know you're the expert, but this is just an archive.org web link. There's no clear indication (to me) that it's an online copy of a book, I would, once again, question why we have accesdates etc, for every single online resource besides these ones. It makes no logical sense to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category is "prisoner-of-war" but I don't see that precisely formatted phrase once in the whole article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except where noted these have been addressed. Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]