Wikipedia:Peer review/Wings for My Flight/archive1

Wings for My Flight
I've listed this article for peer review because, well, I've been pretty much the only person writing/editing this article. It passed GA, and my goal is WP:FAC, but I'd like some fresh eyes first. Are the citations okay? Are there any sections that might need revising?

I'm kind of new to this; this is my first peer review experience. Let me know if I've messed anything up. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

A great topic. Happy to offer a review:
 * Shouldn't the "the" of the subtitle have a capital T?
 * ✅ Ah, good catch. Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The first line should give us the year of publication and probably the publisher; we don't get this information until the third paragraph of the lead
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "save the then-endangered peregrine falcons from extinction" Extinction in the US or more locally, I assume.
 * I followed the lead of Peregrine falcon, which indicates to me the species was threatened both in the US and in parts of Europe. I focused on the US in the Background section, since that's what the book is primarily about. Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Endangered Species links to the same place as the already-linked endangered; did you want it to go somewhere else?
 * ✅ I think I originally intended for it to go to the US Endangered Species list, but it appears there isn't an article about it, so I've removed the link as redundant. Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "where one of the last pairs of peregrine falcons was discovered" It's not clear what you mean by it PCthis.
 * Is it PC/accurate to refer to Native Americans as "Indians"?
 * ✅ There isn't really a right answer on this in terms of political correctness, as I understand it. To be safe, I've changed all instances of "Indians" to say just "Anasazi". Mz7 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The community eventually shows concern for Houle, however, after her trailer is burglarized." Sudden shift in tense. (Also, sorry, but the word "buglarized" makes my eyes bleed, and I think similar is felt by many Brits. Is there perhaps another way to say this?)
 * Changed it to The community eventually showed concern for Houle, however, after her trailer was burglarized. Sorry about the Americanism—I will try to rephrase it. Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Library Journal described the book as "well-crafted and compelling," while the Los Angeles Times referred to the book as "heartfelt", although "naive and overdrawn at times"." Three things: First, quotes always need to be cited, even in the lead; second, be aware of MOS:LQ, and, third, (I know some disagree with me but...) perhaps you could attribute views to particular reviewers, rather than personifying publications?
 * I originally cited the quotes directly, but I think the GA reviewer said they weren't necessary because they weren't controversial. I have just reread WP:V and you are exactly right. I've ✅ the inline citations. Will add the author names. Mz7 (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Marcy Cottrell Houle wrote Wings for My Flight in the several decades following a major decline in the peregrine falcon population, which occurred between 1950 and 1970" Again, this needs to be contextualised. I'm assuming you're talking specifically about the US, here?
 * Symbol question.svg Once again, I'm not sure about this. According to Peregrine falcon, parts of Europe were affected as well, and I think that's relevant to the overall background of the book. But I need to do more research to be more sure. Thank you for bringing this up. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to decades without the century, you need an apostrophe- it's elision. So, it's '40s, not 40s (and certainly not 40's, but you don't do this). That said, elision is perhaps a little informal for a Wikipedia article.
 * ✅ Hmm, you're probably right that it's too informal. I never put too much thought into it though. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "biological ecosystems" Is "biological" redundant, here?
 * ✅ Yes it is! Nice catch. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "especially DDT,[5] whose breakdown lowered" DDT isn't a "who"- I think you mean "the breakdown of which"
 * ✅ Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "the Chimney Rock area was home to 250 Anasazi Indian ruins dated between 900 and 1100" is, presumably?
 * ✅ Changed to is. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "is forced to face" Why not simply "faces"?
 * ✔️ by Moisejp. Totally agree with the change. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You're a bit back-and-forth with tenses in the publication section.
 * ✅ I switched several verb tenses. Let me know if I missed any. Mz7 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ""I felt more comfortable changing the names because I worked for so long with those people, it was impossible to be honest about them if I named them," Houle explained in a 1991 interview with the Rocky Mountain News." MOS:LQ again, and a bit journalistic.
 * Most of the LQ issues have been with this edit by Moisejp. I wasn't aware that this style was standardized—thanks for fixing and pointing me to the guideline!   I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say the quote is a bit journalistic. My goal was to show why Houle changed the names, and I thought that quote would do that well. Should I paraphrase it instead? Mz7 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Oregon Book Award, presented annually by Literary Arts, a non-profit organization that promotes literature, intends to recognize the works of Oregon-based authors in a variety of literary genres.[16][17]" Necessary?
 * I added this bit of background because my GA reviewer recommended it to me during the review. When I was first drafting the article, I thought it wasn't necessary as readers could click on the link to find more information about the award. But then again, I didn't think it was a bad thing to add a bit more. Mz7 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "that "affirm the highest values of the human spirit."[19]" LQ
 * Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Chicago Sun-Times published a positive review, noting how" As above, perhaps credit the authors of the review?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Henry T. Armistead referred to the book as "well crafted and compelling, a dramatization of the classic conflict between the legitimate interests of conservationists and developers," and, "highly recommended on several levels, as science, sociology, or a story."" LQ
 * Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ""Wings for My Flight is a personal story," wrote Gulliford, "but also a chronicle of environmental success. Without a doubt, peregrines saved Chimney Rock for the rest of us."" Again- LQ and a little journalistic.
 * "a freelance writer for The Record" If he's freelance, he's not really "for" them, surely? How about "a freelance writer publishing in The Record"?
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "as "loosely organized and occasionally sparse on detail."[9]" LQ
 * Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Donna Mitchell for The Wilson Bulletin" One doesn't really write for academic journals, typically. "writing in" or "reviewing the book for" may work better, perhaps.
 * ✅ Mz7 (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Concerning Cade et al.; you should really cite the particular chapters in an edited collection, rather than the collection as a whole.
 * ❌ I don't have access to the Cade book at this moment in time, but I've just requested it from my library and will add the information once I get it. In the meantime, I've replaced it with citations to Wings for My Flight itself. Mz7 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not fully clear on the status of the work... Is it a novel? A time-slice biography? You imply the latter initially, but it's called a novel by one reviewer, and the author mentions changing names and other details.
 * It's definitely not a novel. It's probably a "time-slice biography". I'm generally convinced the review that referred to it as a novel used "novel" loosely or offhandedly – I've modified the quote to make this perhaps more clear. The author makes it clear that the story is not fictional. As far as changing names goes, that was done out of respect to the real people and places mentioned, not to fictionalize the subject. Mz7 (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar and Nexis threw up very little, which surprised me; I'm wondering now where I've heard of the book before- I'm pretty certain I have... A strong article. I'm yet to look into the sources and images in depth. I made a few small edits- please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your comments! I really appreciate them. You caught me when I'm a little busy, but I will try to work on the article this weekend. Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments from Moisejp
 * The lead mentions a "multimillion-dollar project to build a tourist attraction for ancient Anasazi ruins" but the main text only says "He explains that the Forest Service spent more than half a million dollars building a road which led to Chimney Rock; work on the road had to be discontinued upon discovery of the falcons. Further, the Chimney Rock area was home to 250 Anasazi ruins dated between 900 and 1100... Meanwhile, Cottrell is forced to face indignation and harassment from the residents of the Chimney Rock community, who view her presence as impeding the progress of the construction of a tourist attraction for the Anasazi ruins." There is no mention of "multimillion dollar". Also, it's not clear whether the half-million dollars spent on the road is related to the tourist attraction development; at first I assumed it wasn't, but maybe it is?
 * ✅ Finally got back to you on this. The book mentions that Houle had to stop a "million-dollar development" to build a tourist attraction for the Anasazi ruins. It appears that detail slipped through the cracks of the content summary. Thanks for pointing that out. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a huge concern, and I'm not sure the best solution for this, but it is something to think about: Apparently Cottrell married and changed her last name to Houle (but kept Cottrell as a middle name or something for the purpose of publishing the book)—that's all fine. I was just wondering whether the way you switch from referring to her as Houle, then to Cottrell, then back to Houle is the best way. Personally after the switch back to Houle (in the Publication History section) I got lost for a second. But it was probably just me and I probably wasn't paying attention closely enough! But I was thinking maybe if there is a way to spell out this transition all the more explicitly, it could be an idea—just some kind of marker: for all you slow people out there, take note, the author's name changed between the 1970s and the present! Or, if it works, just call her Houle the whole way through? But, again, if you're comfortable with how it is now and don't think most people will get confused (granted, I was only confused for a few seconds), you could leave it as it is. :-) Moisejp (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I actually originally had it with "Houle" the whole way through. And then I reread the book itself, and in it, she refers to herself as "Cottrell" (obviously, since the book is set before she changed her name). I'm rereading my article now, and I can understand where confusion can arise. I think I will follow your suggestion and change it all back to Houle. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added a parenthetical note saying she was then called "Marcy Cottrell" but switched all of the "Cottrell"s to "Houle"s in the section. Mz7 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "In the middle of June, after several days of making field observations alone and with limited equipment, Mr. Fitch introduces Cottrell to her teammate, Alex Porter." I believe there's a dangling modifier here. It's Cottrell, not Mr. Fitch, that made the field observations. I guess the easiest way to fix that would be to change the second part to "Cottrell was introduced by Mr. Fitch" but it might be a bit clunky. Maybe you can rework the sentence in another way. Moisejp (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ You are absolutely right. I tried to reword it. It now reads: In the middle of June, after Houle had spent several days of making field observations alone and with limited equipment, Mr. Fitch introduces Houle to her teammate, Alex Porter. Hopefully that's better. Mz7 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that's all. I gave your article a good two reads through, and made several edits as well. I did not check any of your sources. I think the article is generally very good—well written and paced, and interesting. If you happen to have time, I would very much appreciate if you could contribute to a Peer Review for an article I have been working on: Peer_review/Title_TK/archive1. Thank you, Moisejp (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your comments! I'm drowning a bit in real life right now, but I promise I will respond to all your comments once I get the time. Mz7 (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course. Take your time. :) Moisejp (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Break
So, I think I've addressed most of your comments. I do have a question, though. What do you mean when you say a couple of the quotes are a bit "journalistic"? My main goal was to relate what I thought was relevant information. Should I paraphrase the quotes? Should I get rid of them? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Closed
This has been open for several months now, and I think I got some pretty good feedback. I think it's time to put it to rest. Josh, if you're seeing this after the closure, I would welcome your response on my talk page or the article's talk page. Until then, see you around! Mz7 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)