Wikipedia:Peer review/Old Louisville/archive1

Old Louisville

Article still needs a copy edit and I'm still doing some general work on it, but let me know if there's anything glaringly confusing about it, still needing a citation, or any other serious problems. --W.marsh 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first peer review for November - Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, looks like you already beat me to it :). I agree that it needs a copyediting: look at "Culture":

After years of decline with abandoned buildings and high elderly populations, ~~in more recent years the culture of Old Louisville changed~~ Old Louisville has a changed culture. New residents were [are?] not just college students using the area as housing, but also young professionals who wanted [want?] to live in Old Louisville, ~~whom~~which the Courier-Journal's Velocity weekly has reported ~~see~~ ~~the area~~ as a hip, emerging center of culture in Louisville. This change is reflected in numerous coffeehouses, restaurants and bars opening in Old Louisville in the 1990s and early 2000s targetinged at the younger crowd .[2]

Old Louisville is one of the most liberal neighborhoods in Louisville, as evidenced by the General Election results in 2004, where itthe residents voted for John Kerry by a 60% margin and ~~66% voted~~ against a proposal to amend the state constitution to define marriage as "between one man and one woman" by a 66% margin (which passed 75% to 25% in Kentucky).[20] AZ _t 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use some copyediting, as mentioned. A map of the area would be useful, possibly with icons showing where the neighborhoods and/or landmarks are located. Also, a couple of the pictures (like Image:Picture 1025.jpg and Image:Picture 1003.jpg aren't really horizontal, which is kind of distracting. Image:St James Art Fest.jpg doesn't add a lot to the article -- it just looks like a bunch of people visiting tents. The picture doesn't distinguish between an art festival in one city versus any other. On the positive side, the article does a good job of explaining the development of the area, its decline, and its resurgence. I'm most interested in the preservation interests and in its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. (By the way, I mentioned this peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, in case anyone there has any input.) It's an interesting article, and with a little bit of work, it could be A-class. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. On the pictures, regretfully myself and another editor, neither of us particuarly good photographers, provided most of them... they really don't do the neighborhood justice and I've been trying to improve them, but I've always hoped an actual photographer would come along with better images. Feel free to rezise any of them as appropriate. I will probably remove the art festival image if this goes to FAC, since you're right that it doesn't add a great deal. I'll get to work on a map too, that would be helpful.

As for the preservation, that's largely the neighborhood associations concern... right now my understanding is that it's hard but not impossible for developers to rezone and modify the older buildings (a relatively well preserved mansion was recently converted to condos, to much dismay from preservationists). I'll see about adding a section for preservation eventually, or integrate it into revitalization (since preservation was what initially sparked interest in professionals moving to the area and preserving it, rather than just converting it to cheap housing). I remember reading about the Hational Register of Historic Places campaign, nothing specific off the top of my head, but I'll add that when I find it again (the information, not the top of my head). Anyway, thanks again, this is all very useful. --W.marsh 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a new image on Flickr to show the art fair a bit better. Also I found a bunch of images on Flickr I didn't know where there, if anyone with a better eye for design than me wants to pick out some good ones to illustrate this article, have at it: these should all be CC-by-2.0 and usable by us --W.marsh 23:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good photos in the Flickr set. Here are a few good ones: Amazing, Houses, Stone and Glass, and Someone's Home. I also edited the two photos already in the article to straighten them out, so they looked more horizontal. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]