Wikipedia:Peer review/National Docks Secondary/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is well referenced and believe it's a b-class or betterDjflem (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Djflem (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article with helpful maps. Here are some questions and some suggestions for further improvement.
- The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. The existing lead introduces the topic but does not summarize the "History" section. I'd suggest expanding the lead to include a summary of the history. WP:LEAD has details.
- Can you include the length of the line, perhaps in the "Route" section and then in the lead as well? It's hard for an outsider to picture the situation except as a tangled web of rail lines in an urban setting. Giving the length of the National Docks Secondary from end point to end point would help place the tangle in a dimensional setting. It might also be helpful to give some other distances such as the length of the part of the line running parallel to the turnpike extension. Maybe some other kinds of distances would help place this in context for the reader as well. Since almost all readers know where New York City is, would it be helpful to say how far the northeastern end of the line is from New York City?
- Would it be helpful to include some tonnage statistics or some other kind of statistics to give the reader a more clear picture of how important this line is and how important (busy) it is expected to be?
- Can you include anything about the costs of expansion and renovation? Who is paying for the renewal and expansion of the port? Anything else about the economics of the line?
- Some of the wikilinks are redundant, and removing them would give more emphasis to the remaining wikilinks. Generally, I would not link a term more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. For example, "cut" is linked on first use in the "Route" section, which is fine, but I would not link it again in the "History" section. I would not link "right-of-way" more than once; "Lehigh Valley Railroad" should not be linked twice in the final section. You will probably find other redundant links if you hunt for them.
- WP:MOSBOLD suggests a very sparing use of bolding. For this reason, I would suggest using italics instead of bolding on alternate names of the railway that appear in the "History" section.
- File:Lehigh Valley Jersey City Terminal.png should include on its description page the source of the base map and the source of the map details; that is, the description should say what map(s) were used as the basis for this derivative map, and what books or articles or maps supplied the information that were added to the base map. You might have to confer with the map-maker to find out the answers to these questions if you didn't make the map yourself.
- The dab-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds four links in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
History
"which constructed storage and lighterage facilities on Black Tom Island" - Link lighterage to Lightering?
References
- The date formatting in the citations should be consistent rather than a mixture. For example, citation 1 uses August 24, 2009 but also 2010-11-19. Since the August 24, 2009, form is the only correct one for the main text of a U.S.-centric article, I'd choose that, but you can also choose the 2010-11-19 form for the citations only, if you prefer.
- I'm not sure it helps to link to the Google version of the Acadia book in citation 1 since the online version is incomplete and can't be used to verify the claims in the article.
- The abbreviation for a single page is p. and for multiple pages it is pp. In citation 1, for example, you have used pp. for a single page, and this should be changed to p. To make the change, change the word "pages" to "page" in the citation template.
- Citation templates often have many parameters that are unfilled and are never going to be filled. For example, the "doi" box and the "id" box in the citation 1 template have no practical function in this case. It's good practice to remove the template parameters that you are certain will always be useless in particular cases. This reduces clutter and makes it a bit easier for other editors to find their way around your articles in edit mode.
- In citation 4, the actual publisher seems to be the State of New Jersey Department of Transportation, and the citation needs an access date.
External links
- I would consider moving the three sets of coordinates to a little table in the main text. For lack of a better example, I'll point you to one I made for Pennsylvania Canal (West Branch Division)#Points of interest.
I hope these 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. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)