Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1

Ridge Route[edit]

This was a featured article but was defeatured recently for being rather low quality. I just totally rewrote and expanded it, and would like some comments. Thank you. --NE2 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very good IMO, the prose is FA-worthy and it's well-referenced. There's still a couple of missing citations in there though, that need to be addressed. Also the geographic coordinates throughout the Description section are kind of jarring and would probably be better left out, or instead integrated to the Images of the Ridge Route page (which I just transwikied to commons:Ridge Route). Other than that it's very well done. Krimpet 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the coordinates are very useful, since they allow someone who doesn't know the area to follow along. Would it be better if I superscripted them? As for the ^{[citation needed]} tags, I asked for help with that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#How can I find the boundary of a U.S. national forest?; hopefully someone will respond. --NE2 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that they are useful for following, though they just look kind of weird as-is. Admittedly though I'm not really sure what the best way to integrate them would be. Krimpet 05:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need full biblio info, including publisher, author and publication date when available, and last access date on websites—all in a standardized, consistent format. See WP:CITE/ES. I agree the coordinates are jarring and disruptive to the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the access dates for all the references for which the link is not just a "convenience link". --NE2 18:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates[edit]

Ruud Koot added a "title" parameter to template:coor d. I now have the choice of the following:

34°37′01″N 118°42′03″W / 34.6170°N 118.7008°W / 34.6170; -118.7008
National Forest Inn (34°37′01″N 118°42′03″W / 34.6170°N 118.7008°W / 34.6170; -118.7008)
National Forest Inn ^{(34°37′01″N 118°42′03″W / 34.6170°N 118.7008°W / 34.6170; -118.7008)}
National Forest Inn ^{(34°37′01″N 118°42′03″W / 34.6170°N 118.7008°W / 34.6170; -118.7008)}

and other possibilities. Which one do you think is best? --NE2 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the first one, it's 34°37′01″N 118°42′03″W / 34.6170°N 118.7008°W / 34.6170; -118.7008 with secure and PDF links, and intuitively identifies it as map link without disrupting the flow of text. — Krimpet (talk/review) 00:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always reject external inline jumps in the text of FAs. We shouldn't be sending readers outside of Wiki except for refs. I'm not following why we are adding coordinates inline, or why it is felt necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes it possible for people not familiar with the road to follow along. Most of these features are not marked on maps, and it's an encyclopedic way of saying "this is where the place is". --NE2 05:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any precedent for it on any WikiProject, or any Guideline that applies? It seems to me as a case of WP:NOT; Wiki is not a map. I'm not sure I'm a fan of peppering the text with something new without wider discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates --NE2 20:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - And Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, but I didn't find any mention of how to implement in text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is most user-friendly, and prevents having lots of links on one page all saying "maps", but linking to different targets, which is confusing for the user. Please be aware also of {{Coord}}, intended to replace the existing "coor" family, simplify data entry and apply a Geo microformat, giving even greater assistance to and functionality for the user. Andy Mabbett 11:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A better idea - strip all the coordinates from the prose, and put a table of locations and their coordinates in a separate section. If you do, please use the new {{coord}}. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 08:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Including all these coordinates may or may not be a good thing; while it allows all sorts of interesting things, it could be seen as outside the scope of Wikipedia. But whether they are included or not, putting them in a separate ~~article~~ table is much worse idea. JPD (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who suggested it? Andy Mabbett 15:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Noone - I meant table. I don't know how I managed to type article. JPD (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, if inline coordinates and map links are not desired, I think the best alternative would be to have them as footnotes, either mixed in with references and other notes, or in a separate list. JPD (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It became a featured article with the superscripted coordinates, so it's probably not a problem. --NE2 17:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not saying to get rid of them - I'm not too upset with them, although Krimpet and SandyGoegria do have good points about them being jarring and heading towards WP:NOT territory. But my main point is that if they end up being considered a problem, footnotes are probably a better way of dealing with it than a completely separate table. JPD (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]