Wikipedia:Peer review/Springfield, Illinois/archive1

Springfield, Illinois
This article has been the subject of a pretty intense collaboration by WikiProject Illinois, which is now starting to wind down. Looking for a broader perspective on how the article can be improved on its way to GAC and maybe, one day, FAC. There are myriad notes on the article's talk page (recommend reading or skimming it), which may be of use to any potential reviewers and/or editors. There will still be ongoing work for the beginning of this review, so if you see areas without adequate sourcing, it is likely being worked on. Thanks in advance, this article has made quite the turnaround from the unreferenced cruft that we encountered before the collaboration. (See diff). IvoShandor 05:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ganymead

 * Good morning! The article has a really good start and the information is good.
 * My first suggestion would be to reorganize what is currently there. Having a section called "Overview" is a bit pointless, I think, as the entire article is an overview. The article really should be organized along the line of FA Detroit, Michigan. I think it would be fairly simple to just move the sections around and change some of the headings. ✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion a lot, and will get moving on this asap. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Secondly, the history section is good, but it only hit on the highlights of the city's history. If I didn't already know something about Springfield, I might imagine that the city is nothing but Lincoln and race riots. While these are important events, how has the city developed? ❌ IvoShandor 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are currently working on revamping the history section. The plan is: a) replace sources with more academic and peer reviewed sources. b) write main article History of Springfield, Illinois, which will be a thorough article incorporating, especially, the points you mention above. We will then likely compose a summary of that article for the main Springfield article. That is the plan, at least tentatively. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Geography really needs some expansion, the climate section is good, but certainly the city's geography doesn't just consist of Springfield Lake. ✅IvoShandor 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lake section could probably loose its heading and be added to geography as a whole.✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This part is still a work in progress and has been noted on the to-do list : ). IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Going by the layout of Detroit, the following sections are needed:
 * Cityscape (architecture, neighborhoods, etc.), ✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another great suggestion and one that I will thoroughly enjoy working on, those subjects are right up my alley.IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Culture (the sections on popular culture, cuisine and media would be included under this main heading)✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Will incorporate.IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Performing arts✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hadn't really thought about this and the three following as separate sections but it does make some sense. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tourism (would include the section on Historic sites)✅
 * Sports✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Economy✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * D'oh! IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Infrastruture (this would include Healthcare and Transportation sections)✅ IvoShandor 07:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion that I can't believe I didn't think of. I have seen this section in numerous quality city articles. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article could use quite a few more images.✅IvoShandor 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We have a few, they are just waiting on the talk page until the structure is figured out. Some will be useful, some won't. But, never fear, we have a photographer on assignment. ; ) IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work so far! I hope this is helpful. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, before reading review

Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate that this article is kind of lengthy so thanks for reading it. I have made a few notes above, addressing your points, because action will be forthcoming on some of them I just wanted to make sure you knew they weren't being ignored.

Comment, after reading review

Very useful review, thanks a ton. The Detroit FAC model is going to help immensely. Once again, very much appreciated. IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) IvoShandor 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can be of any other assistance, let me know. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 02:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:ReyBrujo
Good work there! Here are some comments:
 * Try to glue short sentences together. In example, It was officially founded on April 10, 1821 as a temporary county seat. On March 18, 1825, the status of Springfield as county seat was made permanent. could become a single sentence like Officially founded as a temporary county seat on April 10, 1821, it had its seat made permanent on March 18, 1825. The main body has also some very small sentences, like He would later become President of the United States. and The first official casualty of the Civil War hailed from Springfield. Another example, It was built and filled in 1935. And an extreme example, Springfield experiences typical middle latitude weather. Hot summers and cold winters are the norm. Illinois also experiences large numbers of tornados. Having too many short sentences make the reading "halty", so try to glue as many of the short ones as possible.
 * The prose will soon be reworked, the history section is a work in progress. Currently, we are trying to compose the main article History of Springfield, Illinois, which, when complete, will be used to construct a much better summary.IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I am guilty of writing the sentences you noticed in the introduction. Your correction reads better than what I wrote. I will have to be more careful about this in the future, but I expect that I may find changing my habits difficult. I've always been somewhat terse in my writing (and speaking) style; even in the writing of this comment I found sentences that could be merged. I am glad that I read this review now though, so that I can be aware of this issue as I am writing for History of Springfield, Illinois. Of course, one should be careful not to make sentences so long that it makes meaning more difficult to comprehend. Plain English supports using short sentences and the Simple English Wikipedia also advocates shorter sentences. I definitely see the merits of Plain English, but I do not write with it specifically in mind. David H. Flint 07:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another in the lead: Its population was 111,454 as of the 2000 census, and, as of 2005 census estimates, the city population had grown to 115,668. could be changed into Its population increased from 111,454 in 2000 to 115,668 as of the 2005 census. Or remove the historical part; remember that the lead should give a short insight of what is inside the article, so specific comparisons like "in 2000, but in 2005" should not be there.
 * Since the 2005 estimate is just that, an estimate, the last specific numbers are from 2000. The U.S. Census only occurs every 10 years, the next one in 2010.IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some references have a space after the punctuation mark (like the last one in the second paragraph). Those should be easy to catch and fix.
 * Roger that. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have problems with some sentences. In example, isn't A race riot occurred in August 1908 when George Richardson, an African American man was accused of raping a white woman. missing a comma after "an African American"? Dismiss this if it is not necessary, I am not native speaker.
 * The whole thing probably needs a copy edit. Will get to work, noting your suggestion. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice there is a dot after a reference, at Springfield is located at 39°46′60″N, 89°39′1″W (39.783250, -89.650373)[GR1]. See if you can fix that. Also, is that GR absolutely necessary? I have a REAL objection (although it is the first time I found it) because it jumps to a Wikipedia page from the main namespace (which is discouraged per Avoid self references).
 * This seems to be the primary way to reference this information on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. You can see an example of this on the Demographics section of the Detroit Michigan article, a current FA. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that, per our measurement guideline, you should use digits and unit symbols for values in parentheses, thus 547.44 feet (166.9 meters) becomes 547.44 feet (166.9 m)
 * Also, when using a dash that will be interpreted as a range (like in 1953-1955), use a ndash or – per WP:DASH.
 * Thanks for the link here, I knew about this but couldn't remember where to find the info. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some sentences like Although not born in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln is the city's most famous resident. He lived here for 17 years. may be misunderstood. From a foreign point of view, when I read "He lived here" makes me think the article was written in Springfield.
 * Will definitely work on the prose. IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is very well sourced, and pretty interesting to read. However, the amount of small sentences at some sections make it appear a telegraph transmission instead of an article ;-) which is (personally) the biggest problem with the article. Try reading the article out loud making every stop last three or four seconds, and you will realize some sentences are very related, yet separated by unnecessary punctuation. Nevertheless, very good job! -- ReyBrujo 03:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your very useful review. I have responded to most comments above, just so you know they are not being ignored. Things are still being hashed out, but your review will help in the long run by keeping us focused on problem areas. Thanks again and if you have anything else to add please do. The article will be changing and evolving so if you notice anything as it goes along please note it here. : ) IvoShandor 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)