Wikipedia:Peer review/Yule Marble/archive1

Yule Marble edit

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 has been substantially rewritten, and could benefit from some experienced and schooled eyes taking a look and making recommendations. Thanks, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this very interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Oil shale is a Geology FA and Marcellus Formation and Touchet Formation are both GAs - all seem like they would be useful models.

None work for a model because of the very localized nature of the geology OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 dab link that needs to be fixed.

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 dead links that need to be fixed

Fixed except for the 2007 Senate bill about Tomb of the Unknowns OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining deck link replaced with new source OneHistoryGuy (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of bold face in the article does not follow WP:ITALIC

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead needs to better follow WP:LEAD

DoneOneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but Quarried today at 9,300 feet above sea level... and At 99.5% pure calcite, it is one of the purest marbles ever quarried. seem to be only in the lead

DoneOneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of the headers are not mentioned at all in the lead

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section headers need to follow WP:HEAD better - for one thing avoid repeating the name of the article in headers if at all possible (so the reader already knows this is about Yule Marble and "How Yule marble is quarried" could just be something like "How it is quarried" or just "Quarrying"

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the MOS, units need to be in metric too - {{convert}} works well for this

done but not all with the convert function OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article flow is choppy because there are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and short (one or two paragraphs) sections. Where possible combine these, or perhaps expand them

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid needless repetition - the Background and Famous Landmarks sections do not both need to mention the Lincoln Memorial

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also avoid WP:OVERLINKing

Did not see any Wiki overlink. Extensive wiki links have been added (since the peer review) to the Geology section because of the numerous technical terms OneHistoryGuy (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more references, for example the first four paragreaphs of the 1905 to 1916 section and many of the Structures with Yule marble structures have no refs and need them

The article section with the list of Yule structures does not need a reference for each structure for the list is cited from two published books on the subject. I also placed on Wiki commoms a jpeg of the McCollum list which has more structures than the "City of Stone" book OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Done OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would split out the Yule marble structures as its own list

Do not know what is being recommended. There is a complete list of builds in the last section OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid vague time terms like "present" as these can become out of date quickly - use things like as of 2011 instead

Use of "present" in this specific article will remain valid longer than using 2011 OneHistoryGuy (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not really get the tables in Configuration: 1905 to present - could the information be given as prose instead?

fixed by placing the data in image captions or in the prose OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The geologic timeline might also read better as straight prose - the whole clock time does not work without a better explanation either.

The time data does not lend itself to straight prose. Explination of what the table represents and the time features has been added OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Done All image files were created by a government source, Flickr, or the collection of the Marble Historical Society and I have the authority as the director of the museum to place the items in Wiki Commons (which I noted in with item). I did use verbatim text in some parts of "Development" subsection in "Geology" but the text is public doman for it came from a Federal government agency (US Geological Survey)and USGS is cited OneHistoryGuy (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]