Talk:Rosendale Village, New York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Rosendale Village, New York has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hudson Valley (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hudson Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Hudson Valley of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

Copyedit April 2011[edit]

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need looking at:

Lead
  • "severe problems with its utilities and tax code" - Not really a copyedit issue, but what relevance is the issues of tax code? Did this contribute to the lowering population?
  • The tax issues were one of the municipal problems that caused the villagers to vote to disincorporate. The part about hippies does seem to break up the flow somewhat, but the problems existed before the hippies arrived. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Industrial growth
  • "on the same 14-mile (0.40 km) street" - changed to 0.25-mile (0.40 km) to prevent bad line formatting. If the wish is to keep the 1/4 it would be preferable to be manually done to prevent the line gap.
  • I think that fractions are preferable here, to relate the distance in conversational terms. I don't think the line gap would be a problem, that's also how {{frac}} handles it. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see the problem with writing it manually and not using the conv or any other tl? "on the same 1/4 mile (0.4 km) street"
Decline and disasters
  • "census recount in 1957 in an attempt to secure additional state aid. The census was performed in March 1957" (para5) - was the recount before the census? Was the recount of some other census performed before the 1957 one?
  • Clarified. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Geography and geology
  • "fossiliferous limestone" - not sure whether this is appropriate or not. For example the EB does not even list it, nor fossiliferous, I have substituted "creation of limestone from fossils" - Wiki only has a db page which lists different types of limestone.
I think it is not appropriate lol, however I am not the one taking the article to GA or FA. I do know the word exists, it is just not often used. As well as "limestone made of/containing fossils" being more explanatory, it would be much better to use the name of the actual type of limestone here anyway (I think it was argilaceous limestone [1]), maybe you can find out more on the make-up of it? (or choose it from this list Fossiliferous_limestone)
General notes
  • Many short sentences were split with commas that were not necessary, especially preceding "and". (such as "The village's children viewed Guldy favorably, and were quite friendly with him")
  • I really think having the commas allows for periodic pauses, and is preferable. In a lot of the FACs I've seen, the reviewers tend to say that a copyedit is needed, specifically to add commas at strategic points. After you finish, I'll do a pass-through and add them where I feel they're necessary. Thank you for looking at all this, I only wish the census department was as prompt with their 2010 numbers. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It is incorrect to have a comma with and. Both are used to join sentences - a comma is used to join two indirectly related statements, the and is used where the statements are related. It should be one or the other, not both, as a sentence does not need double joining with ", and".
Commas used for periodic pauses in speech you mean? I do not take commas out willy nilly. "In 1900," is incorrect and the comma should be removed, as well as being removed from "during September 1900, they" "during the 1890s, they". You can get more info at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas and User:Chaosdruid/usefullinks/GOCEconv.
See also: Comma splice

I have taken advice on the matters you have raised, regarding commas, from an FA reviewer to ensure that I am not in anyway reducing the chances of the article when it comes to FA review. I am open to new knowledge and will always take other editors comments on board, please do not think that your words have fallen on deaf ears, more they have made mine open up more and persuaded me to research further into how and why US editors have more commas in them. It is unfortunate that one of my most respected editors has only just raised a comment saying that he tends to leave a lot of commas, unnecessary or not, in American edited articles as it seems that US editors tend to put more in. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say something about that, because I've noticed that articles using UK conventions tend to have fewer commas than US subjects. As an American editor, I do feel commas in places like "In 1900," to be more natural, so it's probably just regional idiosyncrasy. Maybe it traces back to how early grade schools teach basic sentence structure? It's definitely something I'm also curious about. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I was very surprised when my conversation with Diannaa turned up the advice from the Chicago MOS - no commas apart from "April 14, 2011, was..." - I have spoken with another experienced GAC and FAC editor who has further explained the US vs. UK comma styles. I hope that it isn't too much of a change for you to work back to a state you consider ok :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It's fine, the article should ideally be accessible to people from all over the world. And you helped me find the areas where the prose is weak (I'm pretty sure it's argilaceous limestone, need to find a source). --Gyrobo (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Was that one I posted above no use? [2] Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that. I was thinking about the Gilchrist book, but that works too. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You might want to try these as well :¬)
[3], [4]
You can download this one which may have more info...[5] Chaosdruid (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, the geology section was the last substantive thing I added to this article. I was going to research it in more depth while writing about the town itself, but I was told in the peer review that it would be helpful to include just a little info on it here. I'm also planning an article just on the cement industry; Sylvester has six very full pages on Rosendale's cement industry as of 1880. It's probably more appropriate for the town anyway, because the town includes the village, and it (the town) was founded to better regulate the cement industry. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I removed the "landslide" as it was clearly not a landslide. 2-1 is a majority - I would suggest that 9-1, 8-1, or 7-1 were landslides, but definitely not 2-1. Using the numbers 2-1 suggests only three votes, perhaps it should either give the actual numbers of votes or something like "in a vote that averaged 2-1" or similar. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The article didn't give actual numbers. Anything over exactly 50% is a majority, and anything over 60% is generally considered a landslide here. I blame the media for throwing the term around, but the term is used in situations like this. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, here the recent propensity is to call more than 65% a landslide, but that is really because the votes tend to be split 4 or 5 ways (e.g. 10-3-1-1), so that the landslide refers to one party v another party (10-3 in my example) rather than the overall numbers (10-5).
I can see that the US presidential electoral votes are more what I would term a landslide lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, when you're dealing with only two parties, a difference of ~10% means a decisive victory. Losing candidates/parties gain nothing, even if they ended up with 49.9% of the vote. It's not a very good system for minor parties, though New York makes it easier for them than most states do. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)