Talk:Ixelles Ponds

My suggestions to improve this article

First off, each sentence is well written, simple enough, and not too long. You did good! (That is grammatically incorrect, but it's an English expression. :) )

Here are some things that would improve the article.

• Add internal links.
• Add categories. You can take a stab at that, or I can tell you how I would figure out the categories. Let me know which you prefer.
• Add more information, especially something to show notability (why these ponds should have a Wikipedia article). If they aren't notable, we can still use this as practice in improving articles. However, if you want to make this into an actual Wikipedia article, it should show notability.
• If Wikimedia Commons has any images for the ponds, add an image.
• If Commons has a category for them, add a link to the category (using one of the commons category templates).

It's hard to say more than that, because it's so short right now. Go ahead and take care of some of all of those things, and let me know what questions you have. At some point, it would be good to work with something a little longer. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just improved the article (added information etc. to it). Is there anything else that can be improved? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It still needs more links, categories, and a link to the Commons category. Those are things mentioned above. Other comments I have about what you added:

• The image should have a caption.
• The "See also" section
  • This should be called "Related pages" instead. That is the standard heading for Simple English Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
  • The items need to be bulleted so that they are on separate lines.
  • How are the items in this section are related to this article? If they are not closely enough related, the section doesn't need to be there.

Now I'll comment on the sentences in the paragraph you added. Make sure you understand the reason for the suggestions I make. Don't just make the changes without thinking. If you don't learn why the changes are better, then there's no point in my trying to help you.

• First sentence ("With the surrounding park...")
  • "Are reaching" isn't correct English here. Change it to "reach" or, better yet, "go". This is a verb tense thing that can be tricky in English.
  • Simplify the sentence by removing "all the way". Simplify more by changing "deep into the down-town of" to "to downtown".
• Second sentence ("The ponds are...")
  • "Extremely" is not a simple word. Can you think of a simpler word to replace it?
• Third sentence ("The two long and narrow ponds...")
  • "Approximately" is not a simple word. Can you think of a simpler word to replace it?
  • This sentence is too long. It is about three things: 1) the shape of the ponds (long and narrow), 2) the size of the ponds, and 3) the fact that there is a strip of land between the ponds. Wherever possible, each sentence on Simple English Wikipedia should be about one thing. Split this sentence into separate sentences. You might even decide that the article doesn't need all three pieces of information.

Reply here when you have questions or you're ready for me to look at it again. You don't need to leave a message on my talk page, because I'm watching this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected all the things you pointed out. Is there anything else to do? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are some grammar issues, partly from the changes you just made. You also still need more links and you need to add categories.

The first paragraph is fine.

Second paragraph:

• First sentence ("With the surrounding park...")
  • Where is the verb in this sentence?
  • "Down-town" should not have a hyphen.
  • The phrase "to the downtown of" is more complex than it needs to be. How can you make it simpler?
• Second sentence ("The ponds are..."): this sentence is fine!
• Third sentence ("The two ponds")
  • I would take out the commas
  • "The two ponds are 700 metres..." 700 metres what? I think you didn't adjust the wording properly when you simplified the previous sentence. Give it another try.

I'm trying to get you to figure some of this out yourself, just pointing you to where the work needs to be done. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally think it's fine. If you have any other ideas please tell me. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

With the latest changes you made, I think the writing is very good now! I do think it would be good to keep the info about the size of the ponds, though. Would you like me to write a sentence for it?

There needs to be information to show notability (why these ponds should have a Wikipedia article).

The article also needs to be "wikified". That means to do some formatting and add a few things to make it a complete article. I mentioned some of these things above, but I'm repeating them here.

• Add more internal links. There are several things that could be linked.
• The picture should have a caption
• Add categories. You can take a stab at that, or I can tell you how I would figure out the categories. Let me know which you prefer.
• We don't use the heading "External links". Change it to "Other websites". This is documented in the Manual of Style. Also, the item in this section should be bulleted.
• If Commons has a category for the ponds, add a link to it (using one of the Commons category templates). That would go in the "Other websites" section.

Any questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the sentence about the size of the lake, I hope it is good this time. I did the rest of the stuff as well. I didn't find any appropriate category, Category:Ponds doesn't exist, I would like a bit of help with the categories. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I made a few changes, including adding categories. The categories are not active, though, because this is in user space. Look at the history to see what else I did, and let me know if you have any questions.

The sentence about the size doesn't read quite right to me. However, it looks like it was taken from enwiki, and it doesn't read right there, either.

The only other thing is that I still don't see why these ponds are notable.

If you're going to move this to be an actual Wikipedia article, remember to:

• Activate the categories
• Give attribution, since it seems like this came from enwiki.

Those are the only comments I have left. Was it helpful to go work on this article this way? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will do this to my next article and then ask you what changes it need. Of course if that is alright with you. I am going to move this article now. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)