Wikipedia:Peer review/Jeffrey Street/archive1

Jeffrey Street

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I have done a lot of work on this article over the past couple of months. The street has an extraordinary history. This is an article about a very specific place.

Very interested to hear some constructive comments.AWHS (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattinbgn comments: User:Mattinbgn suggested to edit out the words "notable". Done. AWHS (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the edits.

Ykraps comments: Enjoyed the article but it needs proof reading: The first line reads, "Jeffrey Street or Jeffrey Street" (no difference) and there is inappropriate use of capitals (Infection, Surgeon). Done. I have fixed all the inappropriate capitals I could find.
Also, when you talk about allivial, do you mean alluvial? Done. fixed.
The article could do with a few more links: Alluvial, Greenock and Lincolnshire are all in Wikipedia. Done. Added quite a lot.
I am not so sure that the fireworks are 'world famous'. The views most certainly are though! Done. Rewritten and edited out.
Good, interesting work though, worthy of an article. I can't imagine why it was nominated for deletion!--Ykraps (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the great feedback.AWHS (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - thanks for your work on it. I agree with the comments made above - here are some suggestions for improvement.

Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example North Shore (Sydney) is linked five times just in the lead. Generally one link in the lead, and one at the first use in the article body are enough (with other links possible in cpations or tables or references). Done. fixed, deleted a large number, I have kept just enough so that the book functions works
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be four paragraphs max, but this lead is five paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Done. I have reedited the lead along these lines back to 4 paras and tried to touch on all the main points.
The article may need fewer sections / header too.
I do not think the article follows WP:ITALIC in its use of italics. Done. I have edited the italics out throughout from Jeffrey Street and most other instances. Needs review, the rules are a bit complex for a beginner.
The article uses a lot of WP:PEACOCK words like famous, etc. These are generally to be avoided - give the facts and let the reader decide. This is also potentially a WP:NPOV issue.
- If a reliable source uses Peacock words, it is fine to quote it directly
Make sure that references used are WP:Reliable sources - for example current refs 6, 7, and 8 are to the web pages for a wedding planner, a harpist, and a car rental service - what makes these reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (like a newspaper or government source)? Done. I have deleted these refs.
There are also quite a few places in the article that need references - for example this whole section The construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge was a significant event in Australian history, numerous books have been written on the subject. Jeffrey Street, being immediately adjacent to the bridge approaches featured prominently in photographs of the event. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Not all refs are complete in information provided. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V Done. Or at least underway.
Avoid bullet lists - these should generally be converted to prose to improve flow of the article. Done. fixed.
The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even short sections - these also interfere with the flow of the article and should be combined with others or expanded in most cases.
The article should focus more on the street itself, for example the Thomas Jeffrey section does not mention the street at all until the end, when it says Thomas Jeffrey was a leading local citizen at the time, and it is almost certain that Jeffrey Street was originally named in his honour. If there is no reference for this (and none is given, so one is needed) then this is Original Research and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
- Note that there seem to be enough reliable sources on Thomas Jeffrey to write an article on him. Then his name in this article could be linked to the article on him, and the material on him here could be cut down - see WP:Summary style

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great feedback - it is going to take a while to work through this but this all makes sense to me.AWHS
A bit more

I added two more comments above and also note that the article is great at finding all sorts of references to the street - I would work these into the history section, and not list them as bullet points as is done in the Early mentions in the Sydney Morning Herald section now
The tool box in the peer review finds one disambiguation link. Done. Fixed.
Make sure external links are described (not just bare links) and that they meet WP:EL - why is http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/ included, for example? Done. All have been edited and described by title.
A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several WP:FAs on roads at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Transport that may be useful models. There are also several articles on bridges in the same section that might be possible models.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - still working through all this.AWHS (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]