Wikipedia:Peer review/Cedar Hill Yard/archive1

Cedar Hill Yard edit

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to bring it to FAC in the near future. I have never nominated an article for FAC before, so I am looking for feedback on how to improve the article first. I am the sole author of almost 100% of the article, so having another set of eyes looking over would be a great help. I'm willing to answer another peer review request in return.

Thanks, Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Given the length of the article, suggest expanding the lead

That's a good suggestion, I will work on that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly expanded the lead section, though it may need a bit of copyediting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding a location map to help situate the yard in its larger geographic context
Surprisingly enough, adding a map went without a hitch. Now done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the 1954 facilities in a separate section? How does the structure of this article compare to FAs on similar topics?

That's the thing - unfortunately, there are no FAs on similar topics. I cannot find a single FA (or even GA, other than this one) on a railroad yard. I thought it might be an interesting way to demonstrate the layout of the yard, and I happened to find statistics for the entirety of the yard that year. It could be removed potentially, but there is some mention of some of the individual yards later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the content needs to be removed, but I do think the organization of the article could be reworked to avoid having a standalone section mostly taken up by this table. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1950-1969 subsection is pretty empty, and fits with the time that the content is from, so it could be incorporated there. If it causes space issues, I could default it to collapse. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the table into the 1950-1969 subsection. It seems to fit okay there without needing to be collapsed or rearranged further. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the "several proposals in recent years" is dated to 1986 - that isn't really recent
Good point, I will change the language to reflect this. The yard had heavily declined by 1980, so it would be fine to say "since the 1980s, proposals...". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been done now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some work needed on making citation formatting more consistent - for example, some refs use all-numeric date format while others use mdy

I have added the "use mdy dates" template to the article, which should resolve this. Are there any other examples of issues that need to be addressed? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You'll want similar references to be formatted similarly, or to at least have a reason why they're not. For example, footnotes 8 and 9 are to the same paper, but one has a location and the other doesn't - why? Footnotes 30 and 49 are to the same publication, but one has an ISSN and the other doesn't - why? To be clear, neither is wrong - you could legitimately choose to include or not include an ISSN - but having some one way and some another is a consistency problem. There are also errors - for example, footnote 51 is incomplete. Ditto footnote 25: if you're identifying something as a chapter, there's generally a larger work that should be listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have now been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check that the article is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge. For example, what is a roundhouse?
You raise a good point here. I have wikilinked some less general terms, such as "roundhouse" and "switcher" and I will look for more such terms that could use wikilinks or descriptions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check for style issues - for example, Meriden Record should be italicized in "1920 to 1950"

That particular example has been corrected, I will have to keep looking for style issues, though I doubt I will find them all before FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest providing conversions for measurements and present-day values for dollar amounts. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, that is a relatively easy fix. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have all of these done now, but I will do a second read through tomorrow to make sure. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident I've added all the conversions and inflation templates as needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Nikkimaria for answering this peer review. I have closed it so I can nominate the article at FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]