Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackford County, Indiana/archive2

Blackford County, Indiana

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 (Blackford County, Indiana) for peer review because it has been upgraded substantially, and I would like to get it to a featured article classification.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I see that the article received a lengthy peer review from Finetooth in September. You made no responses to that review, or even an acknowledgement; peer reviewing is a pretty thankless task, and a word or two of thanks never goes amiss! I have not had time to review the article in detail, but a few points stood out from a fast skim:-

Brianboulton—thank you for looking over Blackford County. I really do appreciate you taking the time, and I know this article is a little more lengthy than most. Finetooth and I communicated using our talk pages, and I made significant changes to Blackford County using his suggestions. He also edited a photo for me. Perhaps we should have used the peer review page for communication—my inexperience shows.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, Blackford County was patterned somewhat after Warren County, Indiana and the guidlines in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties. At the suggestion of FineTooth, the Geography section was moved to the front, with the image map, to make it easier for the reader to relate to the History section. (I liked that suggestion.) During FA review, one reviewer did not like the Geography section, and wanted all references to communities to be removed from that section and added to History (not my preference). Some changes were made to the Geography section, but it seemed like the article was moving "in circles".TwoScars (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the usefulness of a single set of coordinates for an area of over 400m². Is it some project requirement that these details are included? What point is actually fixed by these coordinates?

The coordinates are for the center of the county, which happens to be near the county seat. Warren County, Indiana, a featured article, also has coordinates for the center of the county.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the counties that had FA or GA status use a single set of coordinates for the center of the county.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the prose seems a little heavy-footed. Example: "Shamrock Lakes is Blackford County's only incorporated town.[29] Incorporated May 21, 1973, Shamrock Lakes was the only town to incorporate in Indiana in the previous 50 years." Note repetition of town's name, and "Incorporated ... incorporated ... incorporate", all within two short sentences

I will try to work on that this weekend. It probably happened as a result of multiple edits. It may present a challenge, since "incorporate" is an important word in this instance.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Shamrock Lakes, will check elsewhere too.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image map: nice work on your part, but is its location in the "Extinct settlements" section the best placing, since it gives information on existing settlements, too?

The location of the image map is a result the previous peer review and FA reveiw. I originally had it "higher" in the Geography section, and a subheader for unincorporated communities. I am open to suggestions.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the image map higher, next to a new subheader called Communities.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what criteria were used to select the four notable people from the county? I am not doubting their notability, just curious about why these four only. Also, I think you should include birth and death (where appropriate) dates for all four.

I will research their birth and death dates. These are really the four most notable. A fifth person was dropped after the first peer reveiw. There are two additional people that could be added because they have Wikipedia pages (Henry Crimmel and Edward Everett Cox), but I do not believe those two are as famous as the four I already have listed. Crimmel and Cox were more famous regionally, while the other four had national impact.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I noticed that some of the footnotes contain uncited information.

Which footnotes? The patents note links to the patents—should they have a cite?TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added footnotes for the patents. This leaves a footnote with some math/calculations, and a note about MapQuest, without some type of cite. Do these need cites?TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with using the Patent Footnote Template is that it links to Espacenet, which does not have old patents in its database. This causes an error. Perhaps I will try to "fake" the template (make it look like the template is being used when it really is not) to avoid the error message.TwoScars (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patent templates are now still included, but commented out. Footnotes have appearance of template, but link to Google Patents (which works for these old patents) instead of Espacenet.TwoScars (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All notes now have at least one citation.TwoScars (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very limited review, but it may be worth your considering these points and, at least as far as my prose comment is concerned, looking for similar instances. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]