Wikipedia:Peer review/Lighthouse/archive1

Lighthouse

Recently rewrote this and looking for comments before submitting as a featured item. Thanks! GCW50 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJH

It's interesting, but it doesn't seem quite there yet. Some comments:

Please use the cite templates for your reference; a bare URL isn't going to cut it during FAC.
There are a few too many short paragraphs. Please merge or expand.
You might want to run the article through a spelling checker.
Can the article tell us what light source was used for early lighthouses? Was it oil?
The lead section needs to provide more of a summary of the main article. There is content in the lead that is not covered by the body, so it's not a summary. (See: WP:Lead.)

Hope this helps a little. — RJH (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary

First, I agree with the references comment from RJH. Consider more print sources as well; I'm sure there are plenty out there. That's just a personal opinion because I think print sources are a tad more reliable than internet sources. Anyway, here we go...

Lead: Your opening picture isn't so great. Something easier to see that properly illustrates a lighthouse would help (of course, I was raised in New England and spent summers down at Cape Cod, so I have no problem, but what about those poor land-locked folks in Oklahoma?? ;) Anyway, images won't affect your attempt to reach good article status (I don't think) so let's talk text. The first sentence is awkward; I wouldn't start with a clause like that. Try: A lighthouse is a tower building or framework meant to aid navigation and pilotage (umm... is this a word?) at sea, by sending out light from a system of lamps and lenses. The part about fires can be a separate sentence is at is secondary to the primary purpose. Also, take a look at WP:LEAD and spend some time improving the whole intro. It should really serve as a "mini article" that entices the reader to read ahead for more detailed information. Its own size should also be relative to the entire article; an article this size should have a good-sized intro to match.
History: This section is great. It's tempting to go over the top in a section like this, but this is very concise yet detailed. Well done. I'd try to get another in-line citation for the first paragraph just to increase verifiability if additional text is added in the middle by future editors. This article falls into passive voice occasionally (as do I), which is generally considered weak writing. For example: In the Islamic world, lighthouses were also known. Try Lighthouses were also known in the Islamic world (I'd also give more detail on dates right in that sentence). The final 'graph in that first subsection uses the word "use" twice in the same sentence; try "operation" the second time. Under "Classic period," the person "was drowned" or should it just be "drowned"? For your longer 'graphs in this subsection, I'd also suggest scattering a couple more in-line citations throughout, as mentioned a second ago. You also toss in the term "wick" before explaining that the lighthouses were using flames at the time (pretty obvious, but it couldn't hurt). Under "Modern," the term less picturesque may be challenged for NPOV so I'd stick an inline citation right there.

Light technology: Great section here and I'm glad it was included. I might consider, briefly, the possibility of starting with the building design before the tech-specs of the light. Maybe. Definitely more citations under "Lens technology" subsection. I also think the two-item list at the beginning breaks up some great prose writing; consider integrating. "Light characteristics" is very brief and, I think, would work fine as one medium-sized paragraph rather than several small ones. You also have a verb redundancy, to indicate distinguish safe water areas.

Building design: A bit word here throughout. Ex: ...the lamp needs to be placed at an appropriate height could be the lamp is placed. Otherwise, it kinda sounds like a "How-to" guide to make your own lighthouse. ;) I'm personally not a supporter of having bolded "vocab" words within the text of an article (other than the article's main subject in the first line) but that's really editor's choice. There are also a couple of single-sentence paragraphs which should be avoided. I'll make those same two comments for the Range lights section that follows; that section also could use more sources.

Maintenance and Preservation: Consider possibly merging these two sections together. I don't feel strongly about this but thought I'd just throw it out there.

Popular culture: As every pop culture section on Wikipedia, more sources would save this article from accusations of original research or questions of verifiability.

This article is very close to getting Good Article status. I hope my comments will prove helpful. Best of luck, and thanks for your efforts so far! --Midnightdreary 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]