Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wallkill Valley Rail Trail/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:24, 16 April 2011 [1].

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail[edit]

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of two rail trails created from the former Wallkill Valley rail corridor. The shorter, southern trail was promoted in January, and I think this article is ready to join it. There's a nice photo of a medium-sized tree growing between two railroad tracks, so you might want to read this article just to see it. Gyrobo (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback: Gyrobo, your last two FACs were carried a very long time because of prose issues. I hope this has been well copyedited before nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read it and give feedback, but don't want to get into another big back-and-forth. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I requested a peer review back in January, and I also got some feedback during an attempted A-class review. Prose wasn't identified as an issue – and unlike my previous two FACs, this one only covers (roughly) the last 20 years in terms of history, and coverage is fairly comprehensive. I'm anticipating a review similar to this. Thanks for reviewing, Truthkeeper88. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've done a quick scan of about half the article and again am seeing MoS errors and problems with flow. Before spending the time on a full review, I suggest strongly that Gyrobo review MoS before bringing another page to FAC, and that the changes Finetooth suggested in the peer review be incorporated. I would have brought up those points here, again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What changes did Finetooth suggest that I haven't incorporated? --Gyrobo (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said I didn't want to get in a back-and-forth. Finetooth is a good reviewer and some of the changes haven't been made from what I can tell by looking at the PR. Also you need to fix MoS issues on the page. And, more importantly, you need to know what the MoS issues are instead of bringing to FAC and have others tell you. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but reviewing takes time, and I'm very picky (and I don't like being made to feel bad for being picky). Finally, am recusing myself based on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion along this line continues at User talk:Truthkeeper88#Vagueness. Regarding this article, I am not aware of any outstanding issues from the article's previous reviewers, and Truthkeeper88 has not described any specific errors in the article, for me to address. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry Gyrobo, I haven't looked at the PR but I agree with Truthkeeper that MoS, among other things, needs work. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Image sandwiching, all over the place - some of it is because I have an odd screen size, but there are a lot of images here
  • Removed some images, does it look good now? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking issues - overlinking (ex. motor vehicles, dogs), repeating links (ex. See also, which should not include any links already present in article text),
  • WP:SEEALSO gives some latitude in what can be placed in See also sections, and I believe that the companion trail is so important to the topic that it warrants mention in that section; and without its presence, the portals would be either in an empty section, or moved to External links. I removed some links to animal articles, but I thought those links were appropriate given that the section was about animal and plant species. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-editing needed: typos ("Wallkill Valley trials"?), grammar issues ("The Wallkill Valley Rail Trail was the 17th rail trail created in New York state,[24] and it became a National Recreation Trail in 2007."), awkward and unclear phrasings ("The idea of converting the former corridor to a rail trail was first considered in a 1983 environmental report commissioned by the town" - this is the first sentence of a new section, which town are you talking about?), etc
  • The typo was part of some editing I did a few hours ago, fixed, and fixed those instances. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistencies in reference formatting - be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for weblinks to print-based sources, in whether you provide publisher locations, etc
  • I believe I've taken care of this; all online sources except the books have accessdates. Regarding location, I have made that available in all cases where the location was known, and where the template supported it. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll post again when I've expanded the lead. Thank you for reviewing, Nikkimaria. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the lead, does it look good? I think I solved the issue with too many numbers, as well. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I've been asked for a full review. Instead I'll post a selection of problems I see:

  • Consistency in spelling - cross country or cross-country?
  • As a reader, the sentence early in the lead with all the numbers makes my head hurt
  • The infobox is overly long and distracting
  • This sentence needs a rewrite: Passing through a variety of habitats, the trail is frequented by many types of birds and animals.
  • "History" section - sorry, but as a reader I'm totally lost.
  • Seems to be over cited - have a look at WP:CITEBUNDLE
  • I've combined the citations that are adjacent and not likely to be reused, but a lot of these refs are named and can't be combined. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria listed some examples of this, I believe I fixed it. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is choppy in places
  • See WP:MOSIMAGES regarding text squash
  • Haven't a clue what BOCES is and am forced to link out to find out about it - if it's an acronym, then explain in the text
  • Final para in the "Recreation" section is a bundle of factoids - what does shale outcrops have to do with bicycle shops? Shale should be linked and outcrops probably not necessary to link
  • In my mind, parking is associated with general sights, like the outcrops, because both are landmarks (and splitting them would create a one-sentence stub for the outcrops). And I think "outcrop" itself is an unfamiliar enough term to link. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #10 has two photographs in the book and nothing about the subject, see page 10.
  • Ref # 11 I believe should be on page 8 - see the link above
  • Ref # 12 fails source verification - nothing about Conrail or selling in this edition of the book. If it exists in another edition, then the source should be changed

I've only read through the first few sections. Have only checked one source, not looked at referencing, images, or for copyvio. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 10, 11 and 12 are all for Mabee's 1995 book, not the 2003 book. If you're looking for a good story, I'd definitely recommend Listen to the Whistle. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ISBN for refs 10, 11 and 12 links to the book I looked at. I don't know whether or not it's a 2003 book, but if it's incorrect it should changed. That book doesn't have the information cited by those three refs. Nevermind, clicked the wrong ISBN. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently having Internet connectivity problems at home, so it may take an additional day or so to address these issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My connection is back up, I fixed some issues last night, and I'm going to work on the rest tonight. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only scanned the article briefly and found a few quick things.

  • New Paltz and Gardiner: "to fund several rail trail–related projects." Dash should be a regular hyphen here.
  • MOS:ENDASH says the en dash should be used for for compounds, in this case "rail trail". Would it be simpler to reduce it to just "trail-related"? --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after Sojourner Truth?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wallkill_Valley_Rail_Trail/archive1&oldid=1089082984"