Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Panama Canal/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panama Canal

[edit]

This article has been substantially expanded and mostly re-written since its previous attempt at FA status. I believe that all the issues raised in the previous FAC have been dealt with. I think it's now pretty much ready for FAC, and I'd like to have some input as to what remains to be done to get it there. Thanks in advance... — Johantheghost 15:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Issues still remain such as the presence of list material and ugly subsections. Manual of style for units ( ) not followed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking at it, but can you clarify what you mean please? What do you mean by "presence of list material"? Obviously there are lists, but the MoS allows that. And what do you mean by "ugly subsections" specifically? I'll bring the units in line with MoS as per your comment. — Johantheghost 13:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        1. You've used a lot of bulleted text. It will need to be rewritten into prose.
        2. Each section needs to have about two paragraphs. Some sections such as the lake is a bit short of material. =The future= needs to be merged with History.
        3. Linking to the Panama Canal Authority (ACP). site inline is considered bad style. Wikify it instead and create a new article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm sorry, where does it say I can't use lists? There are 3 lists in the article, which is not what I would consider "a lot", and in each case the lists are genuinely describing list-type information. The layout of the canal could be made into prose, but I think is far clearer as a list of stages; the list of crossings and the list of improvements are obviously lists, and making them into prose would be a mess.
  2. "Each section needs to have about two paragraphs" — can you show me that rule in the MoS? In fact, the MoS itself has lots of one-paragraph sections. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, depending on context; eg. Alajuela Lake is clearly one of a series of sections, which in general clearly deserve to be sections. Yes, the bit on Alajuela Lake could be longer, but I don't really know what else there is to say. As for merging The Future with History, I really have trouble seeing your logic here. The sequence "History" - "Current Issues" - "Future" makes a lot of sense to me, and they clearly deserve to be separate sections.
  3. "Wikify it"? What new article? You mean an article about the ACP? Actually, the manual of style specifically says "A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect.", and shows an example equivalent to what I've done (see WP:MOS-L). Since this is not a reference about the entity under discussion, but a link to the entity under discussion, I believe this is the appropriate style for this situation. — Johantheghost 14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't get so defensive over the comments. :) It is generally accepted that the article should be mostly prose, and if it is possible to convert lists to prose then it should be done. Other than the last list, I think the first two can easily be converted to prose. The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section. As I've said, having the link inline is considered bad style, it disrupts the print and aural rendering of the text. You've given valid reasons for the rest, so I won't press on, though ideally the =Future= section is really an extension of the history. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I sound defensive, but I'm struggling to understand your points here. The article is mostly prose, and I just can't see how I can rewrite the Layout as prose -- keeping all the distances, heights, etc. -- without it being an unreadable mess. Want to have a try? But as it stands, I think it's a lot more useful to anyone who wants to extract information from that list -- eg. how many miles of man-made channel are there, how many miles in fresh water, etc.
  • "The MoS in question actually talks about the =External links= section" -- no, I was quoting the "Internal Links" section -- look down towards the end of that section. But I didn't know about external links disrupting the aural rendering -- what is the problem with that? How is it different from Wikilinks? Does WP:MOS-L need changing?
  • It's true that Future is really an extension of History, but so is Current Issues, so they could all be merged into one huge section. But it's better to break things up, isn't it? Actually, the Future section as it stands is much more an extension of Current Issues than it is of the History section. — Johantheghost 12:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you give prosifying a shot? I can do it, but I don't have much time on my hands these days. As for the aural rendering, its to do with inline text linking, not at the =external links= section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did; it looked like a horrible mass of figures, so I didn't even bother committing it. Re "=external links= section", what I actually said was "I was quoting the Internal Links section" of WP:MOS-L -- please refer to my earlier comment. If you can let me know what the actual problem is, I'll see about fixing it. — Johantheghost 14:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the inline links recommended in WP:MOS-L is that in the printer-friendly and aural versions of the page, the URL is rendered inline, which — particularly for aural rendering — disrupts the flow of the text to an unacceptable degree. I've therefore created the Panama Canal Authority article and linked to it, as recommended by Nichalp. — Johantheghost 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Panama_Canal/archive2&oldid=1080985632"