Wikipedia:Peer review/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1

Stephens City, Virginia
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, I need to know how to proceed with some of the sections as others and I work to make the article Good Article material. Currently it is a B-Class and has had ALOT of work done, but still isn't quite GA-Class. The "History" section needs slimmed down, summarized, and evaluated. Some other sections need to be just checked over to see if they meet the status for GA. Thanks,  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised."

Comments by Doncram I just revised citation of NRHP nomination doc to include author, date, more. Could map showing location within Virginia be included near top, so reader gets big picture before or with getting location within county? Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I requested that from a couple editors (a combo County/State map, like the ones the big cities have...see LA) but there is an ongoing discussion about maps and such, so that is being held up. If you know of anyone who is willing to make a couple maps (like the ones on the LA page) please let me know. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Review
Finetooth comments: This is a good start, nicely illustrated, but not ready for GAN. A lot of work has gone into it, but it has, I think, a major copy-paste problem that will probably require a complete re-write of the "History" section. (Please see my note about this further down in the review.) Here are some other suggestions for improvement and possible expansion.

Lead
 * The lead should be a summary of the whole article rather than a set of introductory paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is to mention each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text. The existing lead says nothing about climate, culture, government, education, and so on. If you imagine a reader who can only read the lead and nothing else, you will see how to write it. WP:LEAD has details.
 * Is "bicenquinquagenary" a real word? Or is it a made-up construction with an unclear meaning?
 * "Stephens City is the second oldest town in the Shenandoah Valley after nearby Winchester, about five miles north". - All of the quantities given in imperial units need to also be given in metric units. I like using the convert template for these; e.g., 5 mi or 65 acre, but some editors prefer to do them by hand. I see that at least some of the quantities later in the article have been converted.

History
 * "the Stephens' men worked with the Baron to reach a beneficial conclusion... ". - Lowercase "baron"?
 * "Likely with a log stockade... ". - Would this be better as "likely surrounded by a log stockade"?
 * "the complex was called 'Stephens Fort' and provided settlers' refuge during attacks" - Maybe "provided settlers with refuge"? I'm not sure the possessive works well in this case.
 * The "constant traffic" quote falls below the four-line threshold for a block quote and would be better as an ordinary quote embedded in the main text. WP:MOSQUOTE has a full explanation. Ditto for other quotes of fewer than four lines.
 * "Young men from Stephensburg served during the American Revolution, with two going to New York for battle." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "Stephensburg men, including two youths who went to New York for battle, served during the American Revolution".
 * "Following the war, some slaveholders were moved by its principles to free their slaves." - This is unclear. What principles does a war have?
 * "freed his slaves Lucy and her child James" - "slave" rather than "slaves"?
 * "to improve the Great Wagon Road (today's US 11)" - Spell out and link U.S. Route 11 on first use?
 * "enjoyed more pleasure with one month...in Canada than in all my life in the land of bondage." - Here and elsewhere the ellipsis generally takes a space before and after. Exceptions are explained at MOS:ELLIPSIS.

Reconstruction, the railroad and a name change, 1866–1899
 * At this point I noticed that at least some large sections of the article come verbatim from the source. The whole first paragraph of this section looks like a straight copy-paste from the source, "Town History" by Byron C. Smith. The citation says the material has been published as GFDL, but the source document says, "Copyright © 2007 Stone House Foundation, All Rights Reserved." What makes this material OK to copy? My own preference is to avoid copying unless I am quoting small amounts of text placed inside quotation marks and attributed. Otherwise I paraphrase and try to find multiple sources; this avoids copyright violation and plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism. The GFDL license, if any, would have to be assigned by the source author or publisher; it can't be assigned by Wikipedia editors to someone else's intellectual property. This looks like a really big problem with the current article since the Smith document is all that supports much of the "History" section.

Geography
 * A good rule of thumb is to give at least one source for every paragraph as well as sources for statistics, direct quotes, and claims that have been questioned or are apt to be questioned. The first paragraph of this section is unsourced as are claims about thunderstorms and hurricanes that are not common knowledge. It's fine to use maps as sources, by the way.

Government
 * Extremely short paragraphs are usually frowned upon. I think some of these could be merged.

Transportation
 * I'd merge some of these shorties too. Also, I'd suggest dropping the subhead, "Plans to Move Virginia Route 277" and just merge this material with the rest under the "Transportation" head. A lot of short paragraphs and sections create a choppy article rather than a smoothly flowing one.
 * "one half mile south of its current location" - All the references to miles should also have metric equivalents.

Religion Layout
 * "In the 2000 Congregations and Membership in the United States study by the Glenmary Research Center... " - Too many adjectives modify "study". Suggestion: In 2000, "Congregations and Membership in the United States", a study by the Glenmary Research Center... ".
 * "a breakdown of population of Stephens City was given as to what denomination of Christianity the residents were adherent to" - This half of the sentence is awkward too. How about "assessed the religious preferences of the residents of Stephens City"?
 * "33.2% where adherent to the" - Sentences in Wikipedia articles should not start with digits. Also, "were" not "where"?
 * The first sentence of this section is misleading since it implies that all of the residents were Christians. The subsequent statistics don't seem to support that generalization; about 90 percent seem to be Christian, though it's not clear what "another denomination" might mean. Also, "attended" might be more accurate than "adhered to".
 * Images should appear inside the sections they illustrate, should avoid creating text sandwiches, and should not overlap sections or displace heads, subheads, or "edit" buttons. On my computer screen, the history marker image displaces a head; the image of Samuel Hull's Store overlaps two sections, and the two images in the "Culture" section create a text sandwich between them. I think these problems can all be solved simply by shifting the positions of the images slightly.

Possibilities for expansion Other
 * Utilities such as water, sewer, electricity, gas, telephone, TV, Internet.
 * Geology of the region. Where did those mountains come from? What kinds of rock underlie the town? Limestone? Anything else? Any caves nearby?
 * Pre-history and archeology. What is known about the area before 1730?
 * Culture. Does the town have a library? A museum? A public swimming pool? What is the Virginia Tech Memorial Garden for? What are Hokie Stones? Why 32 Hokie Stones?
 * Media. Any daily or weekly newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, college newspapers?
 * When you re-do the "History" section, you might consider shifting some of the material to an "Economy" section that would explain how residents of the town make a living in 2010 and how that differs from the past.
 * The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find two dead links in the citations, four links to disambiguation pages, and no alt text for the images. The dead links and dabs will certainly need to be fixed, and it would be good to add alt text as well. WP:ALT explains alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Review Comments

 * Haven't read over everything (still at the top) but yes, "bicenquinquagenary" is a word. I actually had it sourced until a time ago when we decided that a source was unneeded.  If the source is needed to confirm the word is an actual word, I can readd it. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still reading...on the history...which we are actively trying to break down and use other sources...the Newtown History Center and Bryon C. Smith graciously gave use full access to their history section by OTRS ticket (number on the back of the Stephens City talk page). It was decided by discussion that the history was just far too long and wordy, so with the help of User:Parkwells and User:JonRidinger, we worked on getting the history section down to a better, more readable length.  People went on spring vacations, so things got a little backed up, but we plan on moving along soon (very soon).  I am working with the Newtown History Center on getting better sources (so we don't have to cite just Newtown History Center each time) on the quotes, information and such.  Bryon C. Smith at Newtown History Center is essentially doing the bookwork for us, which is great.  While we are keeping the information, we are changing how it is used, so we lessen the use of the Newtown History Center ticket information and more on an originally written section. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have checked some of the pieces as, but please feel free to double (or triple) check my work and change anything you see needed. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Layout Comments - If someone can work around the Culture section pictures and get them to not create a "text sandwich", I would appreciate it. I took care of the rest, but I think in that section it is possible that it can't be avoidable. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The OTRS ticket is good news; I didn't look at the talk page and didn't see it. I think "bicenquinquagenary" is apt to be challenged. My dictionary doesn't list it, and a couple of unreliable sources I checked expressed doubts about it. I don't usually check corrections after PR reviews; time is scarce. If you have specific questions, please ping me on my talk page. One other thing: I see that you've added "done" templates above; they tend to gum up the works at PR. Please use the non-image templates, /❌, instead." Best of luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a source to the word "bicenquinquagenary" on the page (waaaay at the top) and I can add it to the bottom. I think it got removed from the bottom section and not the top section.  The source I have isn't the best one (like the NY Times), but it was the only one I could find.  I can eliminate the word altogether if the source isn't the best for all (and to be honest, I don't think it is). -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a better term, semiquincentennial, which is sourced to the Worcester Public Library in Worcester, MA. A MUCH better source than the one I had and according to Wikipedia (not actually sourcing them) the word isn't confused with a 10,000th anniversary.  So much better. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)The problem with the OTRS ticket is that to me using it like this violates WP:NOTMIRROR (what's the point of copying a history readily available on a website to this article?) and the copied text was written as a town history, not an encylcopedic article. As a result, many of the POV and other wording problems that editors have commented on aren't from editors writing in such a way but simply copying what was there. Further, details appropriate for a town history aren't always appropriate for an encyclopedic article; in fact, most aren't, particularly many of the blockquotes used. As for the word for 250th anniversary, the best place to source it would be at Anniversary where the word is listed. A source for a word like that in this article seems out of place.  --JonRidinger (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Parkwells has taken a good chuck out of the history, made it waaay more encyclopedic (I agree it wasn't the best before) and kinda written it in his words, that isn't to say more work needs to be done...it does. It still follows the same line as the Newtown History Center one, but it now it kinda has a life of its own.  Since Parkwells was on vacation work has halted a little, so at it's present, it is incomplete.  I do believe that with more editing, we may be able to "break free" of the OTRS ticket history version (though I would like to keep the OTRS ticket around, if anything, just to show the unity of the town and Wikipedia) and the history to be it's own, encyclopedic, and GA material. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, a note on sources. Once Parkwells gets done editing, then I will go back to the Newtown History Center (they are doing the bookwork for me :)) and get sources for what Parkwells has come up with.  Hopefully it won't take long on that front.  Just don't want to get sources for something that might be removed. :)  I did that, kinda funny story. :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

<In writing a history it's better to have sources before it is written, that's why it's somewhat more difficult for Parkwells or myself to write the history section for this article. Remember, the history section is summarizing a much larger and more detailed history. The only reason I write a history section before adding sources is because I am familiar enough with the larger history to know that I do have the sources to plug them in. And I add them in before publishing it in the article. It's different here because I certainly don't know the history and I would imagine Parkwells is not familiar with the history that much either. An appropriate summative history can actually be written using just the Newtown History article because it is a sourced, reliable publication. Parkwells got the process going, but it is still a long ways from being an appropriate length for the size of the article and relative to the notability of the town. Speaking from experience, writing a section like that takes a lot of time and patience because you have to go back and look things over and make sure it all fits together.

Not sure what you mean by "keeping the OTRS ticket around to show unity". If it isn't needed (it really isn't), drop it because it will only lead to confusion from other editors, especially once the history section is rewritten and can stand on its own. It won't be interpreted as any type of "unity" between the town and Wikipedia, nor is such a unity appropriate (see WP:COI). The OTRS system is to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get sued for copyright infringement. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know we aren't anywhere near done with the history section. Parkwells was kinda editing as he seen things that needed taken out.  If everything was sourced (and it can be) my fear is it would remain as is and not into the "tasty little morsel bite-sized pieces" that we need to be encyclopedic.  So I was kinda letting him work and do whatever he wanted with the section and would come in behind and edit the sources in.  I think he is still working on the language (POV words and such), weasel words, moving things around, outright deletions of sections not needed (and some really weren't) and stuff like that.  He has done great work so far, but I know (with talking to you) that we aren't quite there yet.
 * My idea with "keeping the OTRS ticket around to show unity" was to show that (even if we don't source it ever, that at one time the Newtown History Center and Wikipedia were working together. I believe we will source the Newtown History Center in some form (so we can just source the page), but my thinking was that if we had the OTRS ticket there, it would show that connection.  I think big and "in left field" sometimes. :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In having sources, I don't necessarily mean "sourced" (i.e. referenced) in the article, but having the sources to read and write from, like physically in front of you. The references in the current history section definitely need moved around, but it's difficult to write a history section without having sources to go from.  And while removing sections and POV/weasel words is great and needed, a lot of the work still needing to be done is taking the large amount of info and summarizing it, which involves actual writing as opposed to just removal.  That's what takes time.
 * The Newtown History page will be referenced in the History section and likely other places within the article. Maybe not to the degree it is now (it has like 30 references right now), but still significant.  It is already listed in the External links section as well.  You really want to avoid even the appearance of an organization working "with" or "connected to" Wikipedia, even on something as innocent as a small town's article.  Wikipedia works with individual editors who act on their own, not as part of a larger organization.  But even then, I would say most editors don't even know what OTRS is (I wasn't all that familiar with it before editing this article), so there wouldn't be much of a "connection" anyway in the way you're thinking.  --JonRidinger (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Newtown History page will be referenced in the History section and likely other places within the article. Maybe not to the degree it is now (it has like 30 references right now), but still significant.  It is already listed in the External links section as well.  You really want to avoid even the appearance of an organization working "with" or "connected to" Wikipedia, even on something as innocent as a small town's article.  Wikipedia works with individual editors who act on their own, not as part of a larger organization.  But even then, I would say most editors don't even know what OTRS is (I wasn't all that familiar with it before editing this article), so there wouldn't be much of a "connection" anyway in the way you're thinking.  --JonRidinger (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)