Wikipedia:Peer review/Port of Albany-Rensselaer/archive1

Port of Albany-Rensselaer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like comments on improving towards GA status and help on any grammar or style or content issues. I think the article is good enough for GA status but I believe I'm biased as I've been working on it so long. Thanks, Camelbinky (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments per talk page request: First, editing disclaimer #852: Review points listed are in no particular order and may range from major flaw to incredibly nit-picky. I may or may not add more points later that I deliberately or inadvertently skipped over. I promise my feelings won't be hurt if the author(s) disagree with and decline to address a review point, provided that the author(s) in turn promise not to have their feelings hurt from me posting the point in the first place.

The TOCnestright formatting has got to go. The TOC stacks next to the infobox and leaves just a short column of content for the length of the TOC, here even if I use a maximized window on a wide-screen monitor. If I reduce the browser window to a smaller but still-reasonable size, all text content squirts below the TOC, leaving an ugly blank area on the left.

DoneCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Climate subsection, there is only the sentence "The Port of Albany has year-round operations." That is not a description of a climate; that is a schedule of operations. The schedule may be a consequence of the climate, but more needs to go here, or else the section header needs to change.

Removed Climate subsectionCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA/FA reviewers will likely complain about one-sentence sections. One-sentence paragraphs are also a common complaint. Although occasionally acceptable (you may have a problem convincing reviewers of that fact), here the many one- or two-sentence sections make the article content look sparse and in need of expansion.

Expanded or combined one-sentence sections and paragraphs. Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1932 and Post-1932 history sections. Strictly speaking, that means that 1932 isn't listed, only the years before 1932 and after 1932. Regardless of that nit, the current titles do not make clear to readers why the year 1932 divides the sections. You may want to make the two section headers more descriptive to act as a better overview. For example, change them to something like "Albany Basin" and "Westerlo Island", or "Original port" and "Modern port", as a general idea, though preferably with better titles than my own not particularly inspired ones.

Removed subsection titles altogether, combining into one history section.Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The end sentence of the Pre-1932 section "The grain elevator at the port... was the largest in the world and as of 2008 was still considered by its current owner Cargill to be the largest in the United States east of the Mississippi River". This sounds vaguely sinister. Is there a controversy, such that other entities disagree with this "largest" assertion in 2008?

reworded to make less sinister and wishywashyCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Post-1932 section begins with a discussion of an event in 2002. That is quite a leap in time. Did nothing noteworthy happen for 70 years, then three noteworthy things happened in six years?

Cite the 2008 theft.

Done Camelbinky (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the Future section, don't insert an "of" between the month and year, as you did with "March of 2008", per WP:Manual_of_Style#Longer_periods.

Done Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Facilities section, the list entry "Wharf length on the Albany side of the river is 4,200 feet with four berths and on the Rensselaer side the length is 1,100 feet with one berth" is problematic. The port doesn't include "Wharf length... is 4,200 feet...". The entry needs to be reworded such that it makes grammatical sense tied with the leading "The Port of Albany includes:".

Done Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Cargo section listing commodities, is "Heavy lift" a commodity, or are heavy lift items a commodity? I don't know. Also, consider making "Commodities included-" end with a colon rather than a dash. Further, do the "grain" and "petroleum distillates" only include what is listed in parentheses, or are those items just a subset? If a subset, you should add "including" or "for example" so that items in parentheses do not read as a comprehensive list.

Heavy lift problem fixed, colon added, subset problem fixed.Camelbinky (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The USS Slater (DE-766) is the only destroyer escort still afloat in the United States, it is a museum open from April to November to the public at the Snow Dock." This is a comma splice. At a minimum you should use a semi-colon rather than a comma, although reworking the wording to avoid the need might be a better solution.

Done Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The Snow Dock at the Port of Albany is also home to Dutch Apple Cruises, a private company, which gives day cruises on the Hudson River and Erie Canal." Drop the "also". It's too far for the "also" to reach back across other subsections to the initial mention of "Snow Dock".

Done Camelbinky (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has references listed both before and after punctuation. Be consistent. The Manual of Style states a preference of placing references after punctuation, so unless you have a burning need to put references before punction and are willing to debate the point with reviewers, place them after commas, periods, colons, and all other punctuation.

DoneCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"port" is wikilinked in the lead sentence. Do not place a link to "port" in the "See also" section, unless you have a good reason to do so, per WP:SEEALSO. I don't see a good reason to do so here.

Removed link in "See also"Camelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are one or two extra whitespace lines that don't appear to be needed.

RemovedCamelbinky (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few other other minor wording and grammar issues. Additional low-level copyediting would be a good idea, if you can wrangle a decent copyeditor. They seem scarce nowadays; perhaps they are hiding until the new year, then will pop out en masse and surprise us all. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]