Wikipedia:Peer review/Joppenbergh Mountain/archive1

Joppenbergh Mountain

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's not a very long article (8.5KB), and I'd like to take it to FAC. The GA review helped find some minor issues that have been fixed, but given my last FACs, I'd like to put this one through the ringer prior to nominating it.

Thanks, Gyrobo (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Nice article. Here are a few suggestions:

I'd be inclined to remove the writing on the lead image, File:Rosendale railroad bridge and Joppenbergh.jpg. This might be done by cropping or perhaps otherwise with a photo-editing program.

In progress. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Name" section, would it be helpful to make explicit the connection between the "Joppen" in Joppenburgh and the "Jacob" in Jacob Rutsen. Since they are not identical, I don't think the connection is obvious.

I believe it's a Dutch transliteration, but I need to find a source for that (it's probably in the Havranek article, but I need to check it). --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style generally recommends italics for emphasis rather than bolding. I'd use italics for all of the variant names for the mountain.

Fixed, I originally had the multiple names in the lead, so the bolding a holdover from that. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constructions like 19th century need no-break codes a la WP:NBSP.

Fixed. ---Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The spelling of the mountain has been disputed by the town... " - I think I'd delete "by the town" since others would have to be involved in the dispute. The other option would be to present a complete list of all the disputants, but that might be overdoing it.

Fixed, I originally had it that way, but figured I'd be asked at FAC, "Who was disputing it?" It seemed kind of awkward to mention an agency mediating a 21st-century purchase so early on. The disputed over the spelling isn't really something that came in my research (there was only the one source that mentioned that it was actually disputed), but you can tell from the sources themselves that the spelling is inconsistent. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Though it was initially believed that fifteen workers were killed... " - Two changes, digits and verb tense? Maybe "Though it was initially believed that 15 workers had been killed... "?

Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it may seem slightly redundant, I'd recommend providing an inline citation for "swarms of gawking spectators" and any other direct quotes in the article. Generally, I'd place the citation immediately after the end quote. Otherwise, it's not entirely clear that a later citation covers the quoted material as well as other claims within the same sentence or paragraph.

Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"it was planned to come from a $340,000 surplus fund" - Rather than the passive, I'd use the active voice here and say something like "board members planned to tap a $340,000 surplus fund".

Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 25, 27, and 28 need access dates.

I used print copies of those articles, from the Rosendale Library, as reference. The links are behind a paywall, and I haven't accessed them, but the titles and dates are identical to what I worked from. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is nitpicky, but if you have specific page numbers for the newspaper sources that are off-line, it would be good to add them.

All the articles I used were clippings, with no indication of page number. And some of the NYT abstracts are giving me weird non-numbers. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than using double bolding in the "Further reading" section, I'd use italics and the automatic single bolding of the link.

Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]