Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulins Kill/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paulins Kill[edit]

Thank you all in advance for your reviews and suggestions. I am seeking general suggestions for improvement with the intention of recommending this article for Featured Article status. I am the chief contributor to this article, expanding from a few line stub to its current look. Please be as brutal as possible, especially with suggestions for copyediting and reduction of any redundant or superfluous text (i'm notorious for that). I thought about first seeking good article status, but I feel that this article more appropriately meets the featured article criterion. User:Ruhrfisch had run the automated peer review script within the past 24 hours (located on the article's talk page) and I believe I have addressed most of the concerns raised by it. However, I am looking for further recommendations. Thanks again and I look forward to your commentary. —ExplorerCDT 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a fine article but I'm a little concerned with the amount of spliting of 2 sentences into their own paragraph. The article seems to be full of 2 sentence paragraphs which could be combined together to make a healthy weight paragraph. The lead might also need expanding since its made up of 3, 2 sentence paragraphs. Also the insect section is quite bare, could it be expanded? Last thing is the font size for the ToC and References might be a little too small, 95% is quite standard through out. Thanks. - Tutmosis 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the sentence thing and combined a few two-sentence paragraphs to create larger paragraphs. I'm tempted in the Flora and fauna section to just combine the content in each section into one paragraph each, rather than have one- and two-sentence paragraphs. I might just go ahead and do that, the paragraph breaks are rather illogical anyway. I'll work on seeing if I can improve the introduction and on including more insects (yeah, more bugs!). As to the TOC and References, I've noticed other Featured Articles (i.e. Michigan State University) use 80% and used their example. I would think at 95% you might as well just not reduce it at all, Given that a 5% reduction of a 12-point font is only a reduction by 0.211666667 millimeters. I doubt my eye would even pick that up. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. —ExplorerCDT 14:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review[edit]

portions that are struck out I think I've taken care of, as of this posting.—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
    • Noticed only a few usages of "today" and "recently" (the latter I kept because it is irreplacable).—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
    • Renamed it to "In literature and popular culture".—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • allege
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[3]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Tried them, cleared out a few passages.—ExplorerCDT 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
      • Several remaining "severals"/"variety of"/"many" are connected to lists, and seem to be needed. —ExplorerCDT 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
    • Doesn't apply, all footnotes that I see conform.—ExplorerCDT 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
    • and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.[4]
      • I think I've copyedited as much as I am able given my connection to the article. I've asked others to do so, to see if I missed anything they'd see better parsed or rephrased. —ExplorerCDT 17:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good suggestions, article meets or exceeds those applicable, IMHO. Thanks for running the script, Andy. —ExplorerCDT 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

I have done some copyedits to try and fix minor typos and tighten it up a little - please revert them if they make errors. I have some suggestions that I hope to enter here later today as well. Ruhrfisch 16:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, here goes. Some general comments first. I like all the refs added recently, but there are still some statements that are not (obviously) referenced and which will need to be for (or during) a FAC. In a related vein, ibid. is not used in Wikipedia refs as a later edit may insert a new ref between the original and the one referring to it via ibid. (which would be confusing). Instead, I would use the <ref name = 'something'>Blah</ref> the first time, then later instead of an ''ibid.'' ref for the next Blah cite, just cite <ref name='something'/> .
  • Course and Tributaries: The USGS cite (for the name) also gives the latitude and longitude for both the source and the mouth. The source is near Newton (in the marshy area). I think I would say this and start the description of the course there, then go downstream and also briefly describe or at least mention the major tributaries as they enter (so the current start of course would be moved down a bit as it is the first tributary, I think). The list of tributaries is OK, but might be clearer if it were listed in a geographic order (Wikiproject Rivers suggests upstream order, i.e. starting from the mouth) instead of alphabetic. I would also add the general direction of each section of the Kill and each of its tributaries in every case (already for the Kill in most instances, but at the start it does that "one long curlicue south, east, north, west, and southwest" to quote the recent comment on the talk page).
  • Valley: What mountain / ridge is the eastern border (only the western is mentioned)? Also "the valley of the Paulins Kill" is OK, but seems awkward when repeated often. Can you say "the Paulins Kill valley" or how about "watershed" instead of "valley" a few times? One place where I would use watershed is "The Paulins Kill and its watershed share the Mamakating valley with Papakating Creek, which flows northward to the Wallkill River..." Otherwise it is confusing which valley is meant (the larger Mamakating valley or the Paulinskill valley). Statement about the closeness of the Paulins Kill and Papakating Creek needs a ref.

More later, hope this helps Ruhrfisch 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll change the citations in question to "op. cit." because I am uncomfortable using the ref name thing.
  • Course & tributaries:I folded the tributaries into the course section of the article.
  • Valley: The article mentions that the eastern boundary of the valley is the NY-NJ Highlands, which is a string of hills and elevations, many of which are unnamed. I'll title the section "valley and watershed." I added a few mentions. Does that statement about their closeness need a ref...anyone who is interest could just look at a map (which would be what I'd cite).
P.S. Thanks for your copyedits, I look forward to your further suggestions. —ExplorerCDT 20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - sorry I missed the Highlands. Here are my final comments.

  • Origins of the name: On a talk page you said the name is also officially recognized by the state of New Jersey - would it mke sense to add that here? I would rearrange the order of the paragraphs to be a better flow. Keep the first paragraph (The USGS...) as is. Move the second (The Paulins Kill was originally known as the Tockhockonetcong...) to last place. Keep the third paragraph as is (Local tradition says that the Paulins Kill was named for a girl named Pauline...). Move the current last (7th) paragraph here (A village named Paulina located...). This is followed by the current fifth (Two other possibilities for the naming of the Paulins Kill...) and sixth (Local tradition does place an Indian village named Pahaquarra...) paragraphs, with the Tockhockonetcong paragraph now last. This would put the Pauline / Paulina stuf together, then switch to Native American names, with all the P names first, Pauline/Paulina together, and the different T name last.
  • Other random comments: Where did the Military Road run - along the Paulins Kill? This was not clear to me. The Munsee were a tribe or phratry (love that word) of the Lenape. This is clear once place, not in another. In the opening section, is 'emigration' the right word to describe people moving from Phila. elsewhere? I like the flora and fauna section and would keep it as is, but is "listy" and someone may argue to split it off into a "List of flora and fauna of the Paulins Kill" (sub)article. Might also say too many subheaders in that section (can always go to bold). I thought See also listed related topics not linked in the article - so the viaduct and counties would not be listed there if I am correct. Finally, these are all suggestions. Change as you see fit. Take care, Ruhrfisch 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins: Moved around the paragraphs, but i keep the Paulina one where it was in the order since the Paulina reference has nothing to do with a girl's name.
  • Random: Military Road crosses the PK at Baleville in Hampton Township. Elaborated on that and it's significance. Munsee (like the Unami and Ulachitago(sp?)) where a tribe/phratry of the Lenape. I just hate that they keep perpetuating that bullshit about the phratry's using animal symbols, that has been disproven so many times by Herbert Kraft, C.A. Weslager, and people who actually knew something about the Lenape. etc. I'll leave the Paulinskill Viaduct link there just because it's a notable structure, and it should be a "see also" The counties are out. As to emigration, dictionary says "To leave one country or region to settle in another." (emphasis mine). As for flora and fauna, would the section work better without the subsection headers, as one big block? —ExplorerCDT 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry that I edited the article before I saw your comments above, especially about the Paulina paragraph move (this was not on my Watchlist then). I put the Flora and fauna subheaders back in as bold items (so they are not in the TOC, but still there to break up and identify the text). That section seems light on references. Is the bridge in the postcard for the Military Road (also at Baleville)? I am fine on emigration. I just did some more copyedits, but am otherwise done for now. Let me know when this is in FAC, and take care, Ruhrfisch 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's where the Military Road crosses the PK. Actually there are two bridges there, the area is shown on maps (though in Baleville) as "Twin Bridges." I'll figure out some references on the flora and fauna.—ExplorerCDT 03:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool - it was just a guess on my part - is that worth noting in the postcard caption? Ruhrfisch 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good guess, that it was. It's probably not worth noting, without having to expand the caption to a paragraph or so. It's mentioned in the article, so I think that might suffice, unless you feel differently.—ExplorerCDT 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • If anything, I would mention it in the article itself "(the bridge is visible in the 1905 postcard, above)" but even that is probably not needed. I found it helpful to watch the FAC page for a while before I nominated Larrys Creek to see what sorts of things to expect once an article is nominated. I've enjoyed this review process and it has given me some ideas for my next 'big' creek article - thanks and let me know if I can be of assistance. Good luck, Ruhrfisch 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't stop ;-) - just reread and made a few more minor copyedits. The unclear Munsee / Lenape sentence I was refering to (in a previous version) was "The Paulins Kill was originally known as the Tockhockonetcong by the local Native Americans who were either Munsee, or Lenni Lenape." (my emphasis, since changed, thanks). Hope these suggestions were helpful. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 03:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Paulins_Kill/archive1&oldid=1142589802"