Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Superfund sites in Alaska/archive1

List of Superfund sites in Alaska

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 for peer review because I would like to make it a featured list. Before adding it to the FL candidate page, I wanted to check and see if anyone had a comment here. Any constructive criticism is welcomed. Thanks, Cmcnicoll (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs more work to meet the FL criteria. I have suggestions about the lead, the map, the illustrations in general, the table layout, and a few Manual of Style issues. To meet the "comprehensiveness" criterion, I'd recommend adding a Notes section that could include information that won't fit neatly into the table.

The map is a good start but needs more detail. The small dots are hard to see. I'd consider adding labels identifying each site by name. I think it would also be helpful to at least add Anchorage and Juneau to the map to give readers a sense of where the sites are in relation to well-known population centers. Also, the source of the base map should be identified on the image description page; the base map itself needs to be free; that is, not protected by copyright that prohibits copying.
- I agree the dots are small, but they kind of need to be. Some other states (like CA, MI, or PI) have a ton of sites, and larger dots would obscure the map. Plus, a smaller dot helps to localize the site better. Clicking on the map brings up a higher resolution image with larger dots too. Finally, I don't know how to create or edit the map. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, the mechanical "This is a list... " first sentence has been frowned on lately in some of the FLCs I've observed. Better would be a summary of the essence of the list. Perhaps something like: Superfund sites in Alaska include or have included contamination at military bases, a salvage yard, a mine, a battery yard, and a business using industrial solvents." Or something like that. Than I might add a sentence saying where in Alaska these sites are. The general material about Superfund sites could follow, perhaps in a second paragraph.
I would consider adding a Notes section where I could add interesting details, if any, about the sites or the specific dangers of certain contaminants or the local reactions to the sites and their clean-ups. Local newspapers are possible sources for some of this kind of information.
I'd try to figure out a way to make the "Reason" column wider for ease of reading. For example, expressing all of the dates in m-d-y format and abbreviating the month's name would use less space for the dates, which could then wrap into two short lines instead of one long one.
- Not sure if changing the slashes to dashes saves any space. The column titles limit the width. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the image. WP:ALT has details.
- Y Added.Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dab-finder tool at the top of this review page finds a link (dioxin) that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target.
- Y Disambiguated. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The date formatting in the Reference section needs to be consistent. Most of the dates are in m-d-y format, but a few are yyyy-mm-dd.
- Y Changed. Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to include an image or images of one or more of these sites. I realize that they may be far away from where the editors live and that even if the editors lived near them, they might not be allowed to get close enough for a photo. In addition, it might be hard to find anything representative to focus on. However, it still might be possible to find suitable illustrations. Here, for example, is a photo of the Salt Chuck Mine. It is not a free image that you can legally copy, but you might be able to convince its author, Nathan, to re-license it as CC-BY-SA 2.0 or higher. Or you might find something else that is free already.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help! Cmcnicoll (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]