| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
- There are a lot of WP:DUPLINKS - I recommend installing User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, which will provide a handy tool to highlight them, making them much easier to find and remove. Generally, once in the lead and once in the body is sufficient, with some reasonable exceptions where you think a new link is necessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason I had once per section in my head. Done.
- My usual practice is to go through and make any minor changes myself to save us both time. I should have time to get through that tomorrow. Let me know if there are any changes you object to, or just roll them back yourself. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The area is variously given as 43.0 square miles and 42.9 square miles - there is also a discrepancy in kilometers. I understand that most likely, both are effectively correct, but we should be consistent. Please adjust. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I have changed both mentions in the prose to 42.9. The infobox still has it to two decimal places at 42.85, I assume that's okay but let me know if not. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- After tweaks, pass on prose. Well-written article! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
- Well sourced, no major uncited passages.
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
- The two sources for Roanoke's altitude could be improved - the first does not mention that it is Roanoke's low point, while the second is a hobbyist website with no guarantee of accuracy.
- Removed those sources, added one from USGS that gives just one figure, so did away with the range
- Lost-Colony.com's essay is not a reliable source. It's a college project.
- Found a better source, made wording a little more generic to reflect new source
- Not seeing support in the Green source (American Antiquarian) for the sentence it's cited at. An 1895 source focusing on the Scotch-Irish exclusively is also less than ideal.
- Couldn't easily find that info elsewhere, removed
- If it's possible to add archive links to the many Roanoke Times and other newspaper articles, that would be great and improve ease of verifiability, but I understand if it's not.
- It's a lot, so we can leave it for now. Not a huge deal. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the Blue Ridge Travel Guide a reliable source?
- Fair point. Couldn't find that claim elsewhere, removed, added ref for Blue Ridge Mts
- Cite #62 (Naturefest) the title is repeated.
- Ugh, the Rke Times had an annoying habit of including a short and longer headline in their citations for a while. I removed this one along with another couple dozen later in the article, hopefully you see this before noting all the ones I just removed, sorry! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the argument for USA.com being a reliable source?
- You mean a source that refers to it as "Roanoke City County" isn't reliable? All of the info was present in the first ref, removed the second.
- Cites #89 and #90 (Hispanic population) appear to be identical, please combine and check for other duplicate citations.
- The first was for 2010 data and the second for 2020, but the data from both can be gotten from the same place, so removed the first.
- Cite #91 is too vague and I don't understand why it is placed where it is in the text (is it just supposed to cite that the 2020 census existed?). Please adjust.
- Couldn't really tell you. Removed, added a ref at the end of the 2020 Census section for all info in that section. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cite #95 is dead w/o archive (Carilion), please add an archive or an alternate source.
- Replaced with alternate source
- Cite #105 (Fabris) - the Newsbank link appears to require login, and possibly payment, which is not encouraged for linking. Please find an alternative URL to link to or simply remove.
- Cite #130 (Henry) has a dead URL, though the archive works. Find a replacement link or tag as dead.
- In general the NHR nominee citations can have a "title" added, something like "[Location Name] Nomination]" or similar.
- Stopping at cite #150 for now, will continue on with the rest later. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some good fixes above, nearly all looks ok!
- Please modify the other historic resources cites (#129, #147, #162, #165 similarly to how you did the Norfolk & Western one.
- This will be a pain, but I think all the Roanoke Times citations should be formatted consistently - I don't know why a lot of them use Roanoke Times, The (VA) as though it's a first and last name, but just Roanoke Times should suffice. If you want to switch them all to Template:cite news at the same time, you can, but don't bother if it's too much busywork.
- In progress, taking a break to address other issues DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I think I've gotten them all - all Roanoke Times citations should be consistent and in the 'cite news' format. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you make a case for RememberTheABA.com being a reliable source?
- #198 (Roanoke Parks and Recreation) should be modified, "Roanoke Parks And" is not a first name, put the whole thing as though it were a last name.
- "History - Greenways" from greenways.org looks OK as a cite, but please add details about the source to the citation including the name of the org.
- What's the case for the Roanoke Star News (Stuart) being reliable? I'm guessing this information can be found in an alternate source, so I would recommend swapping it out. If not, expand with last name of author.
- Is uselectionatlas reliable? If so, no issue, but if not, swap for alternative source.
- It has an article that shows it being well regarded, and is cited on a whole bunch of articles, I think it's good. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Add publisher (US House of Representatives) to Cite #223 (Cline office)
- Lowercase headline for Cite #230 (Jones)
- Modify Cite #244 to make sure it's clear it's an SEC form (Lee)
- Cite #247 (Our History - Tribune), just make the title "Our History" and move "Roanoke Tribune", lowercase, to the publisher or author slot.
- Cite #251 (Roanoke Star News) should probably be to the 'about us' or 'funding' or similar section, not just to the site's front page.
- While I agree, they don't have such a page, and their "About Us" is located at the bottom of the front page. Leave as is, or other suggestions?
- Cite #268 (Amtrak is back) - missing colon ":" in headline
- WSLS - cite to them as publisher, not www.wsls.com. Same thing for WDBJ7 a few cites later.
- For WSLS and WBDJ7 cites, as long as the archive links work, the primary URLs should be to non-archived pages if possible.
- Unless I'm missing something (entirely possible) I believe they're already like this.
- I think that's it for sources! Thanks for your hard work on this!
- All issues discussed, addressed - pass on sourcing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
- Nothing major found, pass, any minor issues can be handled in prose review.
|
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
|
- It looks like a few sentences from the city website were lifted fairly directly and scattered into the article. It's not egregious, but some phrasing tweaks will help guarantee that there's no copyvio. Other than that, no issues found by Earwig. Hold for manual check.
- Think I took care of the worst of the phrases from the city site. Most of what's left are proper nouns.
- After spot check during prose review (12 sources checked, no issues) pass on copyright.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
- Is Salvage Dogs the only show ever been set in Roanoke? If so, probably ok. If not, what are the others and why is only one mentioned here?
- As far as I know it's the only notable production. Others were produced nearby (a couple that come to mind are What About Bob and Dirty Dancing filmed at Smith Mountain and Mountain Lakes, respectively), and there's been portions of a couple of Lifetime movies filmed downtown, but not much of anything within the city itself.
- Issue addressed, pass. History coverage is good based on what I can read, not missing anything major.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
- The 'Notable people' section should be split out into its own article and linked here with a section header and hatnote. Happy to help with this if you are not comfortable creating a new page (not sure if you have before?). Let me know!
- Music to my ears. I'm not a fan of this section and had no idea what to do with it. I'll work on this soon - while I've created a handful of articles and a few redirects, I haven't split content to a separate article before. I'll do some research and let you know if I need a hand, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Issue addressed, pass. Any remaining tweaks can be handled in prose review.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
- Some tweaks during prose review to avoid boosterism, pass.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
- After nominator expansion, no issues of stability, pass.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
- The File:City Seal of Roanoke, VA.jpg - was it published before 1928 for sure? Not seeing obvious evidence of that.
- This link illustrates the original 1884 seal and introduces the city manager's proposal to reinstate it; this link shows the City Council adopting the change, so I think this is kosher to use.
- Similarly, for the logo File:RoanokeLogo.svg - was it actually designed by the uploader, or did they just create an SVG version of the existing logo? These things are usually tagged differently: see File:Logo of Chicago, Illinois.svg or File:Helena, MT Logo.png.
- That file was almost certainly not uploaded by the designer. I've replaced it with a low-res copy uploaded locally by myself and using a fair use rationale, which according to the Commons Help Desk archives appears to be the correct way of handling these logos. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- (and I've since replaced it with a smaller version to ensure fair use is met) DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth checking that the Taubman building is not covered by copyright, even in images - see this link and this one.
- Based on what I've read about Freedom of Panorama in the U.S. along with the text of clause (a) in this bit of US code, it seems to me as if this photo should be good. Again, not a copyright expert so let me know if you think I need a second opinion. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright is admittedly not my strong suit, and these images predate my work on the article. Let me do some research and see what I can find out.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
- The airport image is both fairly low-quality and out of date. Is no better copyright-suitable image available?
- Good question, will check.
- @DrOrinScrivello: any luck with this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ganesha811: All I was able to find online was copyrighted or of the same age and quality as the existing one. I went out there myself this past weekend and took a photo, and have since substituted it in the article. It's current, and of a higher resolution, but I'm no photog so it's arguable how much of an improvement it is. I'll accede to your judgment on whether its worth keeping. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me, certainly an improvement! Pass.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
|
