Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/National Register of Historic Places/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Register of Historic Places

[edit]

This article is the current subject of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject collaboration. I expanded it from a stub to where it is now and am looking forward to broad based input here. Trying for GA and then FA, eventually. What is the article missing? Feel free to assess for NPOV and if you feel like it, the article surely needs a copy edit or two by those new to it. Thanks in advance and I will respond to reviews here, as well. IvoShandor 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JHMM13

[edit]

Here are my suggestions:

  •  Done <Figure out what's going on in that lead. You should keep the TOC where it automatically is so that the average user isn't confused. As it is, it conflicts for space with that image and makes the page look cluttered from the start. IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done<The images in your history section are creating a giant white space between two paragraphs. moved IvoShandor 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneFix up that citation needed spot. On that note, read through the article and try to find every place you think you made a claim that needs to be backed up. If you are very conservative in your judgment, I think you'll get it right. As it stands, the referencing seems pretty good.
  •  Not doneDouble check to see if you need to be so specific in some sections (particularly incentives and nominations.

That's all I can come up with right now. Hope this helps, JHMM13 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will take a look. I don't see the white space or how the lead is confusing but I will consult with others, as this is a current project collaboration.

As for the refs I think that "anything likely to be challenged" has been suffciently referenced, so I am not sure where we could add more, I don't want to overdo it as I don't think every single fact requires inline citation. Thanks again and we will get to work on your suggestions asap. : ) IvoShandor 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! The article is very well-referenced, but that was just sort of a catch-all line I send out there to get people to self-check themselves before FAC shreds it :-/. New suggestions:
  •  DoneI think you might find some hawks at FAC who wish to see the lead trimmed down maybe a touch (I'm talking maybe two sentences shorter). I would be among that group as right now the lead isn't a great "introduction" to the world of NRHP. It seems just a bit too detailed for me. Try to get some of the greater issues regarding NRHP in there and reserve the details for later in the article. This is, of course, at your discretion since I don't know exactly what is detailed and what is not, but right now it's hard for me (maybe not everyone) to be truly captured by the lead. --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneAnother suggestion for you is to try to get some images in your article! An article with the three images you've chosen will have a tough time being approved for FA status. You've got such a plethora of possible images to choose from (so many historic places!). Think of a few that were significant and fit the article's content to help illustrate it a bit better. --IvoShandor 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has torn me. We have tons of NRHP places images, but I just wish there was a better way to illustrate this article. That just seems, so, cliche. I don't know. IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneFor quotes you may want to use the template you can find here. It might create an interesting look to the article and single out any important primary sources that you want singled out (like 49 USC 303).
  •  DoneIs there an emblem or seal for the National Register of Historic Places? That would be a much better lead picture than the one you currently have which, at first glance, could be slightly confusing to the casual reader who does not understand the subject.
  • "As of 2007, the list includes more than 80,000 entries, including many icons of American culture, history, engineering, and architecture." The wording of this sentence could be improved by not having two "include"s.
  •  DoneOK I found a part that is confusing me in the lead. "As of 1998, there were over one million buildings, sites and structures listed on the Register - including historic districts and individually listed buildings - and each year an additional 30,000 are added." Why talk about as of 1998? How were there over one million entries in 1998 when there are 80,000 now? --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know. I am working on this problem, as it seems no one really knows anything about specific numbers. However, the 1,000,000 number includes those buildings listed as contributing properties in historic districts where as the 80,000 would just include the one listing for the whole district.IvoShandor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check this now, any suggestions would help. These numbers are true, just confusing. One million refers to not only the individual listings, historic districts (just the district; not its buildings), buildings, sites and other indivdual lsitings, but also to the member properties of the thousands of federal historic districts. Check it now and let me know. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done"Nominating a property to the Register, which can be done by anyone, is a process which involves property owners, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), local historical organizations and others related to the field of historic preservation." Here's an example from the lead that illustrates what I'm talking about. It seems to me that you're going into far too much detail and this whole section could have the fat trimmed off it. Talk with your fellow collaborators and decide just how you want to do this. Also note the proper conjugation of "to involve." --IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneFigure out what you want to do with the red links in the history section. If they're worthy of their own articles, create them. If not, unlink them.
  •  Not doneThoroughly copyedit this article for grammar, typos, and, most importantly, for flow. Here's an example of some of these problem areas:
     Done"In February 1983, the two assistant directorates, created in 1973, were merged to promote efficiency and recognize that the cultural resource programs are both directorates were interdependent." This sentence reads a bit bureaucratically, apart from the fact that there is a verb issue and you need that comma after 1983. To help you un-bureaucrat it, I'll give you some suggestions. Try to avoid set-asides like "created in 1973." It confuses the reader after you've just given another date which is more important. If you're going to use the term cultural resource programs (which sounds kind of heavy-handed as is), try to really explain it above where you first mention it instead of just giving examples of what they are. Try at all times to make it very readable to the common dolt such as myself. If these are industry terms that must be used, try your best to define them briefly but thoroughly before you use them consistently. In other words, see the article from the point of view of someone who hasn't a bloody clue what the hell you're talking about. ;-D
I reworked this, any other problem areas you see, I am far too wedded to this article to effectively copyedit it, I plan to utilize the League of Copyeditors. IvoShandor 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneTry to layout the sections a little better. Perhaps you want to separate the incentives section from the listed properties section or something. Right now, I don't know at first glance what you mean by incentives, which is an important consideration considering it's in the TOC. Another solution could be using more descriptive words like "Incentives for joining," but please consult with your fellow collaborators first. I am not an expert on the subject and you should take my suggestions as a pointing in something that might be generally considered the right direction...it's certainly not a detailed road map.
  •  DoneI think you should dedicate a whole section to the nominations process with separate subsections detailing it to some degree. You could also find some other solution that might include a table or picture or something of that sort that would illustrate the criteria for nomination. As it stands, I think the nominations section is too long and doesn't seem a proper subsection of "listed properties." Also think about renaming it to "nomination process."
  •  DoneThink about renaming the protections section as well to something that is less vague.
  •  DoneRename the section "academic criticism" to "criticism" and rework the thing to make it flow more smoothly. I'm specifically talking about the first sentence and how it fits into the rest of the section.
  •  Done (kinda)You might do yourself a favor by keeping separate notes and references sections like you can find here.

That's all I have for now. JHMM13 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all good points. I will comment more in depth later. : )IvoShandor 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of the image, it is a difficult one to address. At the same time, though, it still remains difficult for an article with few images in it to get nominated, especially if it's on a subject that is not obscure. Do some digging and see if you can perhaps find "the first NRHP place or some other milestone place. Something that is representative of the whole...like maybe the White House if it is one or Mt. Rushmore. Something really iconic to illustrate one end of the spectrum and then maybe like...I dunno...the rock upon which the Secretary of the Treasury to Grover Cleveland once ate lunch. Something more obscure. These are just ideas. Yours will probably be better. JHMM13 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. The rock that Grover Cleveland ate lunch on...hahaha. Yeah, I like those ideas though. I appreciate this, as this collaboration has been somewhat of a solo effort thus far. IvoShandor 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still working here, but I did do some tweaks and some reorganization. I added a collage I made, though, admittedly, it isn't that great. I am still turning some ideas over in my head. The problem with "the first" listed place is that the first listing were en masse, all of the National Historic Landmarks were added at once, in 1966. IvoShandor 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags above added by IvoShandor 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC). IvoShandor 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags above altered by IvoShandor on 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC). IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I kind of like that collage! That's a good way to illustrate it that I hadn't thought about. If you think you can improve upon it...go ahead, but I like this one. Several other things:
  • Thanks, I just thought it could be more evened up but my photoshop skills are subpar, maybe I can get some help with this, will that be counted against me at FAC you think? 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  •  Not done??? The expansion to the lead is impressive, but try to slice off maybe two sentences so it isn't so imposing. I see that you're still rewriting it, but just as a reminder, the 80,000/30,000/1,000,000 thing still confuses me, so don't forget about it. Also, pull that sentence into the first paragraph and start paragraph 2 with "for most of its history."
Tweaked, check it. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done and  DoneTry the best you can to read through the whole thing again and find sentences that might not logically flow. I don't at the moment have time to read through it all and copyedit, but an example from the lead that could be improved is: "Its goals are to coordinate and help property owners and groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation identify and protect historic sites in the United States." If we break down the two verbs you use here, the sentence with just "to help prop owners...identify and protect etc." makes sense, but with "to coordinate prop owners...identify and protect" doesn't. I know what you're saying, but it seems like different clauses are overlapping. Try to separate them into something like, "Its goals are to coordinate property owners and groups such as the NTHP and help them identify and protect historic sites in the US." See what I mean?
  •  Not done and  Done Try also to get rid of/reword sentences like this: "The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was not the only piece of important legislation to pass that year." We can't decide what legislation is important or not...multiple instances of sentences like that would get an FA an oppose, I think.
Working on this and I have altered a few things. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done I know it's being vague, but try to get rid of redundancy here and there. Check this page out. It will help you run another copyedit eliminating unnecessary words. An example of this might be: "While Section 106 does not explicitly mandate that any federal agency head listen to the advice of the ACHP it is practically "awkward" to rebut their advice..." Also, this is a good example of a place where you should say ""awkward" according to the ____." I think it's a strong enough word that you have to cite it in the prose as well as the citation at the end of the sentence.
  • After I am all done I am usually pretty good at catching these, not always, but I will be going to the League of Copyeditors as well as having other project members do some copyediting. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I like the refs in total so far. I can't find anything wrong with any of the sources you've listed and there's pretty good coverage throughout the article. You may want to tighten up the format on the last three refs in the References and further reading section, though. The second and fourth I don't get and the third lacks and ISBN or LCCN. I could be wrong about these...I'm just calling your attention to it.
  •  Done Try to create the articles for the red links. This wouldn't kill an FAC, but having blue links throughout makes it look more professional, IMO.
  •  Done One-sentence paragraphs, on the other hand, will kill an FAC. Reevaluate those sentences and either incorporate them into the above or below paragraph or get rid of them.
  • You asked me if it has a chance at FAC and I'd have to tell you that it will...after you finish working on it and have someone who is unfamiliar with the topic give it a thorough copyedit. It is a very extensive article that needs another week's work before it will be getting there, I'd say. I congratulate you for working so hard on it and I really, really want to see this thing reach FA status, I just don't have to time to do more than give you this quick summary. Please don't hesitate in the future to request my help, though. I'd rather know you need it and decide whether I can give it or not than you not telling me :-D. I could also direct you to FAC or PR regulars if you needed extra help. For now, really try to look through the WP:FAC page to find common trip-ups and failings. By skimming through those candidates, you'll quickly get an idea of what is expected. A year ago, the article you have might have been an easy FA, but it's tightened up over there. I'd say FAC is one of the very bright spots of Wikipedia in terms of quality and editor consensus, so it's tough to bring an article up to that level...but you can do it. Good luck! JHMM13 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comments have been more than awesome so far, no need to explain why you can't do more, no need at all. You are doing more than enough. There are plenty of ways for me to make sure this is all addressed, but it might take a little longer than a week. : ) Thanks again. IvoShandor 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/National_Register_of_Historic_Places/archive1&oldid=1144849372"