Wikipedia:Peer review/Glen Rock (boulder)/archive1

Glen Rock (boulder)

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to prepare this article for Featured Article candidacy. I have never gone through the process for FA before and I'd like feedback on the article from people who are experienced with the FA process. I'm also pinging Dudley Miles, a user I have recently reached out to as a potential FA mentor.

Thanks!

— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The boulder, which is the namesake of the town". Namesake usually implies something which happens to be the same. Maybe "which the town is named after".
• Refs 1 and 3 need page number(s).
• "As of December 1971, the Glen Rock measured forty-four feet wide" Why the date? Presumably any changes in the size of the boulder since then have been minimal.
• "glaciers receded during the recent Ice Age". It would be more accurate to says "glaciers receded at the end of the last Ice Age". Also, it would be better to link to Wisconsin glaciation.
• "the 2009 report by the Borough of Glen Rock suggests that the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" I do not think that you need to keep saying the 2009 report. "the boulder may have floated upon an iceberg and subsequently sank into its current location" with the ref is fine.
• "As late as 1910, about half of the rock remained submerged under soil". "As late as" does not say anything useful. I would say "Until 1910".
• The main problem with the article, in my view, is the exccessive reliance on newspapers. They can be OK for current events but are not reliable sources for geology and history. The newspaper articles probably have errors, but are presumably based on books and articles. Your refs on geology look OK, so you probably need just to delete the newspaper refs for statements about geology. The referencing for history is weak, apart from the Encyclopedia of New Jersey. In Britain you can borrow academic books and journals through inter-library loan from your local library. Is there any way you can get access to more reliable sources for the history? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Thank you for the pointers. I think that my recent edits have fully addressed everything but part of the last bullet. There are inter-library loan systems in the United States, but I'm not sure that my local library is connected to a national network. I'll look into seeing what resources libraries local to me have access to through interlibrary loans or I'll start making requests on WP:RX to get access to more academic sources and/or historical monographs. And, while newspapers will inevitably have some errors and it is generally better to cite mainstream scholarly sources over mainstream newsorgs, I think there are parts of the cultural history section that newspapers are adequate sources for (i.e. the sign theft saga). The geology section has been culled of direct references to newspapers. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Query by Z1720

@Mhawk10: It has been over a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still seeking comments? If so, I suggest that you post requests on various Wikiprojects associated with this article to ask for reviewers. I also suggest, if you have not already done so, that you review articles at WP:FAC to gain a further understanding of the FAC process. If you are no longer seeking comments in this PR, can we close this? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

With no response after a week, I am going to close this PR. A new one can be reopened when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)