Wikipedia:Peer review/Grand Coulee Dam/archive1

Grand Coulee Dam

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on getting this article up to featured status and would like comments, insight or any contributions from the community. Any help is much appreciated. Thank you.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

General

Some overlinking, for example "U.S. state" and common words such as "irrigation" and "concrete". This can be frowned upon in FA-land.
Sometimes when you give measurements, you have periods afterward (ex "he supported a 290 ft (88 m). dam"). Those all need to be removed per WP:MOSNUM.

Lead

Parallel structure needed: "one of which wanted to irrigate" and "the other side who supported"
"In 1933, the dam was selected" Why passive voice and no subject? After that, a comma is needed to separate "but for fiscal reasons", but I suspect the whole sentence should be re-written in active voice.
"After visiting the construction site in August 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt changed his mind" Does this mean it was he who selected the dam?
Whereas you linked unneeded terms earlier, things like "spillway" bear explanation or linking.
"Between 1967 and 1974, the third powerplant was constructed in conjunction with the dam." You never mentioned there were previously two. Why "power plant" earlier, and now "powerplant"?

Background

"Clapp was joined with another attorney" Joined by, surely?
O Sullivan or O'Sullivan? You have both.
Not sure why you're using past perfect in some cases, for example "The idea had gained popularity with the public"? Why not just "idea gained"? This needs attention throughout.
"The ditchers took a number of steps to assure support for their proposals." The "a number of" construction is rarely needed. "The ditchers took steps" is just as effective.
President Harding was normally known as "Warren G. Harding" and your wikilink is a redirect to that name.
"The Bureau of Reclamation also completed a similar report in 1932 that also supported a dam." Redundant also.. remove one.

Interesting read so far! I will return to leave more comments. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks for reviewing and providing comments on the article! I am busy with the holidays and will make more changes here soon. Just in regards to the "Third Powerplant"; that is what the Bureau of Reclamation officially calls it. It is different than the other two at the base of the dam which are usually referred to as "power house(s)". It is a little confusing but I just wanted to be consistent with their naming conventions.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

"It would still, although at a reduced capacity, help control floods, provide for irrigation and hydroelectricity." Seems like a conjunction or something is missing in here.
"However, the dam's design gave it the ability to be raised and upgraded in the future." This could be stated more elegantly. Perhaps: "However, the dam's design provided for future raising and upgrading."
"Contracts for companies to construct the various parts dam were hard to award because of how large they were compared to companies available, forcing companies to consolidate." This is a bit muddy. I understand what you're saying, but it needs rewriting. Suggest: "The construction contracts were difficult to award, as few available companies were sizable enough to fulfill them. As a result, companies were forced to consolidate."
"The consortium was known as MWAK and their bid was $29,339,301.10" Why give the precise figure for this one but round off Six Companies' bid? They should be consistent, I think.
I would move the wikilink for cofferdam to the first mention.
Need consistency in writing about companies as singular or plural entities. For example, you have "Six Companies ... was" in one place, and "Six Companies ... were" in another.
"A total of 77 men died." This seems a bit out of place in the narrative.
"Mason city contained a hospital, post office, electricity, and other amenities" Here you use the serial comma—in many other places, you do not. Should be consistent.
In "Irrigation pumps", not sure why "irrigation" is linked but not earlier.

Later expansions

The heading itself could be changed to "Later expansion"
"This included 6 pumps and 6 pump-generators." WP:MOSNUM
Overhauls: Why are some of the generators hyphenated and some not?

Operation and benefits

Again, please look at linking. Some terms are linked that have been linked before (irrigation)
"Pump Generating Plant" sometimes hyphenated, sometimes not. Should be consistent.

It's looking very good. Most of the issues are not substantive and just involve consistency, application of MoS, etc. Would be happy to glance over it again after you make edits and before you bring it to FAC. Thanks for the interesting read! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, thanks again for the comments. Most of all, I am glad you enjoyed reading it! I made a bunch of changes and will look over it more, especially for English errors that may be systematic. I have a reference problem that I may have to work out and then it'd be great if you could look it over one more time before FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]