Wikipedia:Peer review/Pinkham Notch/archive1

Pinkham Notch
This article underwent a review six months ago, and afterward narrowly missed FA status. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Multiple changes were made, including those suggested in the previous review. Thanks. -- Sturgeonman 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good. Here's a few comments:
 * I'd prefer that "el." be expanded in the first sentence.
 * Should the first use of "Ranges" be lower-case? Should the first occurance of Presidential, Wildcat, and Carter-Moriah be wikilinked, rather than being linked further down in the text?
 * It's a nit, but "...and sudden increases in elevation..." almost sounds like the range is dynamically changing its altitude.
 * "increasingly northern occurrence" is not quite clear. Does it mean an increasingly northerly latitude?
 * "...vegetation near the summit usually found..." is missing some punctuation.
 * Jeremy Belknap and Biomes should be wikilinked.
 * "This forest type is primarily deciduous and consists primarily..." has too many "primarily"'s in one sentence.
 * ...moose.[13]There is also..." is missing a space after the citation, and the "is" should be "are". Likewise "...up.[16]Warblers..." is also missing a space.
 * This sentence has some confusing punctuation: "Due to colder temperatures, increased moisture, and acidic, less fertile soils, conifers, or "softwoods" become the dominant species." You might want to use semi-colons, or else re-write it slightly.
 * "The notch was first visited in 1784, when an expedition led by Jeremy Belknap..." First visited by westerners perhaps? Or the first recorded visit? Perhaps indigenous humans had visited it long before?
 * In the references section, the first citation is missing text. There might be a format problem.
 * Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed all the problems except the range wiki-linking issue. I think it helps the reader to visualize the geography of the region while they read the section. If someone doesn't recognize where something described is, they can just click the link. Thanks for the suggestions. -- Sturgeonman 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please archive the peer review and switch the talk page template to oldpeerreview; per WP:PR instructions, articles should not be listed at both FAC and PR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)