Wikipedia:Peer review/Long Island Rail Road/archive1

Long Island Rail Road
I'm working on improving this to featured status, and would like to know what it currently needs (besides sources for the tags). I have yet to expand the rolling stock section (I'm hoping someone with a focus on that can help), and also want to write about steamboat, trolley, and bus operations, and add a section about service patterns, with a focus on non-commuter services like the Sag Harbor-Greenport "Scoot" and the Cannonball. But the general layout is complete. --NE2 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that there are far too many red links. This has to be resolved, whether by creating stub articles for the links or by removing the links altogether. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should the status of other articles affect the quality of this article? --NE2 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my view the proliferation of redlinks suggests an overall case of overlinking. Larry V (talk &#124; e-mail) 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To me it simply suggests undercoverage in historical articles. --NE2 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (written in response to the post at WP:VPA, but I noticed this PR and thought this would be more appropriate)The article is at 68 kb right now. I take the 20-minute guideline at Article size, which suggests a size of 30-35kb, pretty seriously when evaluating an article.  Even if you recalculate the size without images and the many references, a technique which reminds me of how I used to change margins in reports, the size would still be a concern.  We sometimes forget that readers may not be entranced by our writing and want to spend an hour out of their day on whatever subject.  I would second the suggestion to split off enough of the article to bring it back within the suggested range, though you of course should be the one to decide what the core topics are.  If you do decide to split off History of the Long Island Rail Road, you can always put your efforts towards making that the featured article.  Though, playing devil's advocate, I should note that the history section by itself is already 48 kilobytes, indicating either a need for more splitting or a good, merciless copyedit to remove redundancy and streamline wording. Measures like starting Central Railroad of Long Island and collapsing the text into one paragraph will help as well. - BanyanTree 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to keep only the overall history in the article, and histories of the other companies and branch lines in their own articles. The various competitors only have the basics necessary to understand how they fit in to the overall picture. --NE2 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Summary style could be a good compromise if the history section splits. Referencing needs to be more consistent throughout the article and the bullet list may be better if it's worked into paragraph form.  Create stub articles for the many red links.  Good work so far.  Durova Charge! 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the history splits, I'll be taking the history article, not this one, to FAC. --NE2 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Without having read the above comments, here are my thoughts...
 * History section should be at the top.
 * The lead needs to be stronger, covering all the essentials, leading the reader into the history section with enough context.
 * History section is quite long, in proportion to the other sections; I suggest a subarticle on the History of the Long Island Rail Road and more of a summary here, per WP:SUMMARY.
 * Too many red links.
 * The first map (in the infobox) and the third map (in the history) need work... I think some of the key stations, such as the terminal stations should be marked and labelled on the map. Also, it's somewhat difficult for me to distinguish the "purple" and "red" colors on the map. Also, I would label the three states, the Long Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean to help orient readers that may not be familiar with the geography of the NYC region.
 * Also, there should be some historic images to accompany the history section. I found one Image:LIRR atlantic avenue station 1910.jpg in the Library of Congress catalog that satisfies copyright requirements here. The NYPL also has some material in digital format that may be of use, provided the copyright has expired.  Surely there is more material out there...
 * References look good, except the "Freight service" section. --Aude (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I don't understand why red links are a problem; these are places where articles will exist, and they should be linked. I'll look into the NYPL images, but I don't think a historic photo of a specific terminal is useful in the general article. Do you have any more comments on the history? If I split that, I will be taking that subarticle to FAC. --NE2 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It might just be me, but red links pop out (eye catching) at me and make it more difficult to read through the text. A red link here or there is okay, but I think it's something people may object to in WP:FAC.  I think short stub articles are fine. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I started looking at the NYPL images, and they have the same problem as the other images I've found: they include the "created date" but not the date published, if published at all. The latter is needed to figure out copyright status. --NE2 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A strategy that I sometimes use is to look through old books and publications available in libraries (public libraries like NYPL, universities, historical societies, ...). I have one book checked out now that was published in 1903.  If you are in or near NYC and so inclined, the New York Historical Society's collection may include some useful items such as "Long Island illustrated" -- issued by the Passenger Department Long Island Railroad in 1903.  Don't exactly know what it consists of, but might be useful.  Historical society staff could probably advise you.  Since it's the historical society, their materials are probably non-circulating, but they could provide a copy of a page or photograph.  It might be too much effort, too inconvenient, or whatever... such efforts are definitely optional. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to split off the history and not work on the main article, that's fine... but, the main article could probably use some details on things like fares (zone system? fare hikes?), safety and security, and expansion projects/proposals. (e.g.   ) - I don't know how notable these details are and how worthy of mention, but some things I found. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The passion that inspired you to expend the effort to write this page is lost among the details. If ridership is the LIRR's distinguishing characteristic, spend more time on that.  No ridership comparisons with other systems are apparent.  If history/age is the distinguishing characteristics, spend more time on that.  The structure of an article on a Boston transit line, Red Line (MBTA), presents a useful structure for describing the history and infrastructure at once.  Notable events might also bear mention; one that comes to mind is a terrible 1993 mass shooting. --Drtillberg 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did spend a lot of time on the history; it's now in history of the Long Island Rail Road. --NE2 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)