Wikipedia:Peer review/Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1

Collapse of the World Trade Center

I've listed this article for peer review because we are interested in advancing the article through the Featured Article Candidate process and need external feedback to determine what we need to do to make the article better. We have been at an impasse for some time as to how technical we need to make the article as well as to whether we are staying well focused on the matter and not diverging away from what should be the main effort. Otherwise the article is relatively stable, well referenced and comprehensive.

Thank you! --MONGO (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

As a long-time follower of this page, I would like to see this at FAC someday. However, I think this needs some improvements first, and that maybe this should first go through GAN. For instance:

• The construction and September 11, 2001 sections have several unsourced paragraphs, but these can be easily fixed since Construction of the World Trade Center and September 11 attacks are quality articles - FA and GA respectively. There are other unsourced sentences and paragraphs that need referencing in other sections.
• The references need to be formatted consistently. For instance, some New York Times references have urls, some don't, and one ref doesn't even have an article title. Same with NIST and other references.
  • Sometimes, the author format is also mixed up. Some refs have "first name last name" authors and some refs have "last name, first name" authors. The latter is recommended nowadays.
  • Some references are shortened footnotes (e.g. ref 11 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxxi; ref 12 - NCSTAR 1–6, p lxvii–lxix). Others are repeating entire bibliographical information and should be shortened footnotes (e.g. refs 19, 20, 21 - all cite Starossek, Uwe (2009). Progressive Collapse of Structures. Thomas Telford Publishing but with different page numbers). Even with shortened footnotes, these are not consistent. Compare refs 65-68, which include links to Eagar & Musso 2001, with refs 11-12, which don't include any links.
• In regards to prose, there are some things about coverage and wording that need to be improved. Just in the lead, for example:
  • The first two paragraphs of the lead could probably be combined since they are about the attacks themselves.
  • The scale of the destruction initially puzzled engineers - "puzzled" could be replaced with a better word.
  • The cleanup of the World Trade Center site involved round-the-clock operations, many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. - this is an inconsistent list style because you have noun, noun, and verb phrase. Better phrasing would be "round-the-clock operations and many contractors and subcontractors, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars."
  • As of July 2019, five new buildings had been erected on the site; the last one, Two World Trade Center, is scheduled for completion in 2022. - not cited in the body, and the second clause is not too relevant, since we can just say "and construction of other structures is still ongoing" or something like that.
• Spelling and abbreviations may need to be standardized.
  • For instance, WP:ENGVAR: I see "stories" and "storeys". I suggest the former since this is an American topic mostly.
  • I also see "WTC #" and "# WTC" (where # is the number) being used to refer to the WTC towers. This should be standardized, even in places where the numbers and "WTC" are spelled out.

These are my initial comments, and I hope to leave more later. If I find any minor issues, I'll fix them myself, but these are things to keep in mind. epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

All excellent insights and I will start addressing them. Greatly appreciate the feedback.--MONGO (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I will be able to dedicate a large portion of time in about a week, but wanted you to know this is on my plate.--MONGO (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@MONGO: No problem. I look forward to providing some more detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Still in process of addressing so lets not close this down.--MONGO (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)