Wikipedia:Peer review/Roxy Ann Peak/archive1

Roxy Ann Peak

 * 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 December 2008.
 * 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it just attained GA status in mid November, and I want to know what else it needs to have to hopefully become a Featured Article. The GA reviewer, Backslash Forwardslash, has already stated that it needs better prose, and a larger history section. I'm looking for more detailed information on how it could be improved.

Thanks,  Little Mountain  5   17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: These are my comments on the lead, the History and the Prescott Park sections


 * Lead: To meet FA criteria, the lead will have to be developed from this brief introduction into a full summary of the article in accordance with WP:LEAD. Also, re over-linking, "radio tower" and "summit" are everyday terms and don't require linking.
 * History
 * There needs to be some link between the ancient history and more modern times. For example, the fourth setence could be amended to: "In more recent times, residents of Rogue Valley have claimed that Roxy Anne Peak was once known as..." etc
 * Done.
 * "They owned the land for nearly seventy years". Are we talking about two very long-lived couples here, or do you mean that their families owned the land for nearly 70 years?
 * Done.
 * References in the section to "residents of Rogue Valley" and "residents of Medford" are a little confusing. When you expand the lead you should make a point of clarifying what Rogue Valley is. Having linked Rogue Valley in the lead, you don't need to link it again here.
 * Unlinked, will clarify in lead later.
 * Clarified.
 * Prescott Park
 * For what purpose did the Lions donate the Land to Medford?
 * I'm not sure, and will try to find the information somewhere...
 * Found a little more info...
 * Instad of "A year after that..." you could say: "In 1931..." etc**
 * Done.
 * You need some more text after "...Federal Land for Parks Act", to explain that the donated land and the additional purchase were used to create a park. Say how much of the mountain is within the park, and also the range of uses the park caters for. This sort of detail will make the jump to the late 1990s litter problems, etc., seem a little less sudden.
 * Added some.
 * "...which ceated even more of a strain..." Even more than what? - what is the comparator here?
 * I think I fixed it, although the sentence still sounds a bit strange.
 * Since the summit of a mountain is a particular point, "covers much of the summit" doesn't really make sense. You should reword, and absorb into the more detailed description of the park suggested above.
 * Reworded.

Perhaps you would respond to these points. I'll continue with the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick review! All of those suggestions sound good, I'll do it. Again, thanks for your time :)  Little Mountain  5   01:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed something that maybe you can answer. All of the refs have the parameters accessmonthday and accessyear, but about 8 in the reflist at the bottom don't show 'Retrieved on' etc. I can't figure out why some work, and some don't.  Little Mountain  5   01:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed your retrieval dates. All I did was to change Ref 2 from "cite web" to "cite news". I'm not sure why this worked, but it seems to have done. You might want to try a bit of experimentation to see why some "retrieveds" are lower case and some upper. Strange is the world of citation templates! Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Katr67 and I fixed them.  Little Mountain  5   22:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the review:-
 * Geology
 * It is not clear why the peak's appearance is described as "unique"
 * Done.
 * What does "the difference in elevation" mean? Does it simply mean "height"?
 * Done.
 * "...has plagued construction workers since the 1970s". Did it not plague them before? Or did construction on the slopes only begin in the 1970s? Needs clarification.
 * Done.
 * I don't think the final three sentences of the section have much to do with geology.
 * Split to new section.

Reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Geography: the section is hardly about geography; it is rather a miscellany of facts. I have hived off the property development stuff into a second paragraph. Perhaps the section needs a different title.
 * Any suggestions for a name? I've split the section.

Overall, I think the all parts of the article could do with some expansion. At 800+ words the text is rather slight to describe a landmark geographical feature. Perhaps more could be said about the nature of Prescott Park, its facilities etc; about the population demographics of the area; about any local industries beyond the winery you have mentioned. Does the peak attract visitors? Are there nature trails, etc? These are only suggestions for enlargement; there may be better ideas. The images are good, and there is no particular problem with the prose, but I would like to learn a little more. Brianboulton (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your the comments, I'll try to carry them out.  Little Mountain  5   16:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)