Wikipedia:Peer review/Newfoundland and Labrador/archive1

Newfoundland and Labrador

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some tips on what to do. I tried rewriting the history section with information from other wikipedia pages but it was delted by a moderator because of copyrighting and I don't know what else should be done.

Thanks, Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article has a major cleanup banner relating to a lack of citations in the History section. A quick glance through iidicates inconsistent referencing in other sections, e.g. no citations in the short Etymology section, uncited material at the end of the Geography section and similarly in other sections. The presence of the cleanup banner makes the article, strictly speaking, ineligible for peer review, but I will add a few comments which I hope will help:-

• The first sentence is unnecessarily complicated, with too much information contained in a parenthetical insert. Personally, I don't think there is a need for a pronunciation guide. The French and Irish names, and the reason for including them, should be given in a separate sentence.
• There is evidence of overlinking in the lead and early sections. Terms like "North America", "English", "French", "Canada" etc do not need linking. Other terms seem to be linked repetitively (e.g. "Portuguese" linked twice in the same sentence).
• Another problem related to linking is evident in the Geography section, with the use of the piped link 7,000 tiny islands. The link goes to a list of about 40 islands with no reference to these thousands of small islands. This is an example of what is known as a "garden path" link, and should be avoided.
• There needs to be consistency in the formatting of references. Sometimes cite templates are used, sometimes not; Ref 25 is a bare unformatted link; no consistency in the provision of retrieval dates; publisher information frequently lacking, etc. Incidentally, ref 27 has a "dead link" tag, though it works OK for me.
• So far as I can see, all the sources used are online, yet there is a long list of recommended "further reading". Why were none of these books used as sources?

I hope these few comments help. There's a fair amount of work ahead. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)