Wikipedia:Peer review/Jacob Aaron Westervelt/archive1

Jacob Aaron Westervelt

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I personally invested more than 150 hours (research/writing) in this article. At the moment it is rated B-class and I dont know if it probably can become a GA or even FA. As Im not a native english speaker (Im Swiss) I therefore need the help of someone whos interested/willing to make a complete reviewing. Thanks,  Rectilinium  '♥' 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Fascinating article on someone I had never heard of. I think this could be GA and eventually FA, though it needs work - here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD the lead should be 3 or 4 paragraphs long for an article of this size. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * Per WP:ITALIC bold type should be used sparingly - in the lead it is only for names of the subject, so I do not think the names of shipbuilding firms should be bolded.
 * Most articles have no references in the lead except for direct quotations and extraoridinary claims, which should always be cited. The idea is that the lead is a summary so the refs will be found in the article itself. It is fine to put citations in the lead, but if this is done, I always figure the lead should cited as thoroughly as the rest of the article.
 * Per WP:HEAD, the names of section headers should not repeat the article name if at all possible (also avoid starting a section header with an article). So headers like "Mayor Westervelt and the police" and "Mayor Westervelt's influence on tourism" could just be "Relations with the police" and "Influence on tourism". A later section could just be "Genealogy". "Westervelt & Co. shipyard (1836–1864)" is OK as it is the name of a firm, although I note that the section never uses this same name for any of the firms he owned / ran. "The end of the clipper ship era" could just be "End of the clipper ship era" (avoid starting witrh the) or even "End of the era" (since it is a subsection of the Clipper ships section.
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
 * Although it is referenced pretty well already, the article needs more references in a few places, for example in "Clipper ships" this This type of vessel had been in demand for the China trade, but they were rather small. From the experience gained in the service of these first clippers, the builder soon found the changes that were necessary in the design for the building of larger and faster ships demanded in 1850 for the California, China and Australia clipper routes. has no ref. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Current refs are lacking required information in some cases. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. Book refs need date published and publisher. cite web, cite book and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * When sources differ as to details, name the source(s) in the text when citing them - for example in the Early life section, it could be something like "According to the YEAR "Genealogy of the Westervelt family", he received additional education under the tutelage of James P. Forrester... On the other hand "Steamboat Days" reports that he went to sea directly after his father's death,[9] while his obituary in the New York Times states that he was already apprenticed to Christian Bergh in 1814.[6]"
 * By the way I am uncertain from the current ref for Steamboat Days who the author is (are the names of two authors given? are the author and a publisher listed?)
 * In Early life, did he have any siblings? Did his mother die early or did she move with them too - unclear from When Ari Westervelt was working on improving the riverfront, he moved, together with his infant son, to New York in 1804, to be nearer his work.[8]
 * The MOS says to introduce someone with their full name and then generally to refer to them with just their last name unless there are others with the same last name. I think that Christian Bergh can just be referred to as Bergh after the first mention. It may be clearer to use his full name when introducing his sons and when referring to both father and sons in the same sentence.
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.
 * I am not sure that the Ancesteros section couldn't be in with the Early life material. Is there a style guide or model article that puts Ancestors last?
 * Both English and metric untis should be given - the convert template is very useful here. English units can go first since he used those.
 * The language is decent, probably close to good enough for GA as is (though it would need polish to get to FA). I am more concerned about issues of organization, internal consistency, and flow. A few examples follow (not a complete list):
 * I already mentioned that the name used for a section (Westerveld and Co.) appears nowhere in that section as the actual name of a company - this is needlessly confusing
 * Or this sentence in the Clipper ships section Westervelt also built clippers, for example Contest (1852),[21] Hornet (1851),[22] N.B. Palmer (1851), Kathay (1853),[23] and Sweepstakes. Be consistent - why is there no year given for Seepstakes? I also note the section starts in the 1850s with Westervelt, then jumps back in time to the first clipper ship in 1835, then ends with this sentence From the experience gained in the service of these first clippers, the builder soon found the changes that were necessary in the design for the building of larger and faster ships demanded in 1850 ... Because of the structure, it is unclear to me which builder is meant here. Why not start a section of clipper ships with the first ship in 1835, then talk about their development, then about Westervelt's clipper ships? I try to follow chronological order where possible to avoid confusion.
 * Reorganizing the Clipper ships section would also lead more logically into the next section "Westervelt's clippers". Short sections are generally discouraged - could Clipper ships and Westervelt's clippers be combined? Also since Sweepstakes seems to be the most famous, why not start the Westervelt's clippers section or paragraph with it?
 * Make clear this is in New York City (Manhattan?) In 1840 he was elected to the Common Council,[6] in which he served for two years as an Alderman from the thirteenth ward.[20] See also [[]WP:PCR]
 * The Riots section begins with Civil War Draft Riots, which are well after his time as mayor - I was confused on a first read through.
 * Huge quotes are generally discouraged, summarize and quote the most important lines.
 * I would move the "Dock Commissioner (1870–1879)" section after his service as mayor - it is a somewhat political office and makes more sense in chronological order. As it is, I remmember reading the current end of the article before geneaolgy and thinking "We need more detail on the last two decades of his life - there is nothing after his election to the state legislature in 1857."
 * How long did he serve in the legislature? Where did he die?