Wikipedia:Peer review/Taconic State Parkway/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taconic State Parkway[edit]

Toolbox
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 just spent the better part of a month improving and expanding it. I think it has GA and FA potential, particularly with more photos which I plan on taking in the warmer months. But I'd also like people's opinions on whether we should split the history section out as a daughter article or not.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just took a cursory glance at the article. Much of the route description has no sources, so that will be an issue. There also appear to be two citation styles in use. The article is rather lengthy, especially the history section. It might worth splitting off the history into a separate article...I'd have to take a closer look later on. --LJ (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked one of the other NYSR editors who knows better than I do the best maps to cite for route descriptions to do so (i.e., the ones that have succeeded at past FAs). Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. I dont' think there is a "magic" map source to use. Paper atlases and free state maps are probably your best bet, in addition to things like topographic maps and tourist guides. I'd shy away from Google Maps, or any other online mapping services if you can.
  2. The bolding in the lines of the table is against MOS:BOLD, especially as you have bolded wikilinks.
  3. All of the shield graphics need |alt=|link=, or they should be converted over to {{jct}} for WP:ALT compliance. There is the |map_alt= tag for the infobox for ALT compliance as well. The ALT text page will explain the requirements best.
    OK, thanks ... the table is the one major aspect of the article for which I wasn't responsible. See? That's why we have PR. It seems that many of the shields do use {{jct}}. How would I debold the other stuff? It's not immediately obvious to me and table formatting isn't my strong suit. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done as far as the infobox alt tag is concerned. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "!" at the start of those lines should be changed to a "|", using <center></center> as needed to recenter the text. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thanks for the help on that one ... learn something new all the time. Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. You should look into using the system like in Saginaw Trail to simplify the references. If done right, the footnotes will be wikilinked to the expanded version of the reference at the end of the article.
  5. Ref 74 should have the title converted into Title Case from ALL CAPS.
     Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There's inconsistencies in formatting.
    1. New York Times should be in italics all the time, and if you're going to include the publishing company, then it should be included all the time.
       Done Apparently I had double-entered the "publisher" parameter. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Dates are not consistently rendered in the citations.
    3. Author names should be Last, First all the time. The state senator's title need not be included.
      There seems to be a new form of {{cite news}} that doesn't do that automatically. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You might need to manually enter |author=Last, First M. instead of |last= Last |first=First M. then. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Footnotes that are explanatory, not references should be in a separate Notes section. This can be done using <ref group="note"> tagging and {{reflist|group="note"}}.
     Done That was easy. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the prose. For now, I'd leave the history in the article, maybe summarizing it a bit here or there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look through the prose another day. It's just easier to check some of the other stuff first before actually reading the whole article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think regarding #2 - Imzadi means just the rows that span the entire table, not the headers (Mile, Destination, County, etc.) --Rschen7754 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, Rschen. The header row of the table can be bold, but the rest should not. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not only can be, but should be. A table without header cells really isn't a table. – TMF 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article and beautiful photographs, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree that the biggest problem is a lack of refs. For the course section, I know Pennsylvania's DOT has beautiful maps online - if NY has such, I would use them as refs. If not, the DeLorme atlases seem to be quite frequently used as refs in road articles.
  • There are several other places without refs that would be a problem at FAC. For example, the whole first paragraph and end of the third paragraph in the Engineering section need refs. Or many sections have an introductory paragraph or two that often seem to need refs.
  • There are also several places where there are sentences that follow a ref, but have none of their own. One example is As a result the engineers were told to only survey property once it had been acquired, a policy that they found difficult to follow. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • I would link New York in the lead
  • The dab finder tool in the upper right corner finds two diambiguation links that need to be fixed.
  • I think the prose could be tightened in some places. One example:
    • The parkway got another state park in 2006, when another wealthy individual donated land. Donald Trump had bought 436 acres (176 ha) along the east side of the road near the Westchester-Putnam county line in 1998, intending to develop it into a hotel and golf course.[78] Local opposition was considerable, and he decided to donate the land to the state. It is now Donald J. Trump State Park, with separate parcels called Indian Hill and French Hill.[79] could be something like...
    • In 2006, Donald Trump donated the 436-acre (176 ha) Donald J. Trump State Park along the east side of the road to the state, with separate parcels called Indian Hill and French Hill. Trump bought the land, near the Westchester-Putnam county line, in 1998. He intended to develop it into a hotel and golf course,[78] but considerable local opposition prevented this.[79]
  • The whole last section is fairly choppy - lots of short paragraphs that do not flow as well

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Taconic_State_Parkway/archive1&oldid=1138565919"