Wikipedia:Peer review/National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Davenport, Iowa/archive1

National Register of Historic Places listings in Downtown Davenport, Iowa
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I need suggestions for getting the article up to WP:FL status. I am working on pictures, so other suggestions please.

Thanks, C T J F 8 3  20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC) This is an interesting list that will need a bit of development before reaching the standard of FL. I highly recommend having a look at User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check if you haven't already.
 * Comments from Belovedfreak

Lead Current listings Former listings References
 * For FL criterion #2, the article needs a developed lead section. Things to consider including are an explanation of what the National Register of Historic Places is and what it means for a building to be included on this list, a brief description of Davenport, Iowa (what kind of town it is, when it was founded), what kind of buildings are included on the list (mainly industrial? commercial?), how many buildings are on the list, who decides which buildings are to be listed etc.
 * I believe the use of bold formatting in the lead sentence is discouraged for FLs.
 * The lead sentence doesn't actually make grammatical sense at the moment. ("The NRHP listings is defined as south of 5th St..."?)
 * "Properties in Davenport are somewhat concentrated in several of Davenport's neighborhoods." - Maybe it's me but I'm not really sure what this sentence is trying to say.
 * The note "This National Park Service list is complete..." seems to be floating a bit randomly. I'd suggest moving it either above or below the actual list.
 * The first column should probably have a heading, not just a footnote
 * Other editors may have different opinions, but personally, I find the age of the building, or date it was built, far more interesting than the date it was listed
 * I'm pretty sure the "summary" column doesn't need to be sortable
 * "Roughly 3rd St. between Ripley and Myrtle Sts." - it's not clear what roughly means here. Is it on 3rd St or not?
 * Personally, I would try to avoid the use of sentence fragments in the summaries. It doesn't flow very well when you have a fragment followed by a full sentence. I'd stick to full sentences.
 * What does "Davenport MRA" mean?
 * I'm a bit confused by the "neighborhood" column. Firstly, unless I'm missing something, they're all the same, making it a bit redundant. Secondly, is it accurate to call Davenport a neighborhood? I thought this list was about the Downtown neighborhood?
 * Some entries are unsourced. How do we know for example that Bonaventura Heinz House is a Greek Revival style residence from 1860?
 * Number 56 does not have blue in the first column - is this intentional? If so, it's not clear why and there may be an accessibility issue
 * For accessibility, the table could do with a caption
 * "2nd. St.", "4th St." - punctuation here is not consistent
 * This may not be something you can answer, but on reading the list, I'm immediately wondering how a building (Ferdinand Ewert Building) that is now an empty lot is still included on the list.
 * Is the different formatting in #49 intentional?
 * Do we know why these buildings were delisted?
 * "Also there is Claim House which was nominated but possibly not finally NRHP-listed due to owner objection." - not great grammar (ditto following sentence), and also looks like original research
 * References would benefit from consistency eg. in date formatting
 * Something's wrong with ref #42, causing the url to break

Hope this gives you something to work with. I don't usually watch peer reviews, so feel free to let me know if you have any queries.-- Beloved Freak  20:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! C T J F 8 3  14:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)