Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial claims in the Arctic/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Territorial claims in the Arctic

I've listed this article for peer review because I have no idea about the direction I should take this article in, and I would appreciate some more feedback on it's current status. Mainly, I have revamped this article to include blurbs about the Northwest Passage, Hans Island, and the Beaufort Sea. Whether this is appropriate/necessary, I am unsure. Feedback on the talk page has been okay, but I would like to see more. Any other review items such as format etc. would be great too.

One million thank yous,

-- Reaper X 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 47 nm, use 47 nm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 47 nm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), defence (B) (American: defense), recognize (A) (British: recognise), program (A) (British: programme).
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, isn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Twigboy 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Twigboy

  • Inline citations could use consistency and expansion with the {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} templates.
  • Footnote 1, 12 and 16 have broken links, as Yahoo news does not keep articles for long. If they were Associated Press stories, there may be alternative sources.
  • Footnote 24 uses name="disputes" which is a nonexistent name and an empty reference.
  • The "North Pole" headline should probably be "North Pole and Arctic Ocean" because claims, such as the 1926 USSR claim include a large wedge of the Arctic Ocean, including the North Pole.
  • Canada's reaction to Arktika 2007 comes before Russia's North Pole claim (due to alphabetical section order). Therefore the reader has to click the link and get the context of Arktika 2007 before the quotation makes sense.
  • I think the section heading "Recent claims" might be better written as "21st century claims". 2001 may not be seen as recent by some, and the passage of time makes "recent" history.
  • Other than Russia, the subsections under Recent claims are short. Suggestion: present this section chronologically, rather than sectioned by country.
  • Hans Island section needs more references. The border drawn by the treaty (127 points) especially should be sourced.
  • The first mention of the US not signing the Law of the Sea is under the headline "Beaufort Sea". This might be significant enough to merit an earlier mention in the article, perhaps even in the lede.
  • Beaufort Sea and Northwest Passage are a bit short. It seems that Northwest Passage" should be the first section; to me, this is historically the most significant Arctic claim.

—Twigboy 17:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Using citations in proper format will come. I took you up on your suggestion to present the North Pole section chronologically, and renaming it to "North Pole and Arctic Ocean". It just needs some serious reworking/tweaking/expansion/updating. As for Beaufort Sea and Northwest Passage, I have kept them short because they already have their own articles. Shouldn't we keep it short for that reason? -- Reaper X 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)