Wikipedia:Peer review/Wyntoon/archive2

Wyntoon
This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is about a piece of property that has held some wild and fantastic homes, and is now owned by the Hearst Corporation. The article made GA last fall and has rested quietly since then. I would like to advance it to FAC but I could use some objectivity. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review


 * Comments from Cryptic C62


 * "Famous architects..." avoid WP:PEACOCK terms. "Humble", which appears later, should also be avoided.
 * "sited at two sharp bends in the river" Which river?
 * The lead needs to give some sort of time frame. How long has Wyntoon been established as such?
 * Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs, such as those that appear in the first main section. These should be merged, expanded, or deleted.
 * "He advocated for a railroad line to be extended northward from Redding to his location, and was successful." It is not clear from this sentence that follows it to whom Sisson was advocating. State government? Congress? A railroad company?
 * "and Sisson bought 120 acres (49 ha) in its path, the area of his inn" This phrasing suggests that he bought the land on which his inn was already situated, which doesn't make much sense...
 * "he built a fishing resort a half-day's ride away on the McCloud River" It should be kept in mind that articles are to be written for the modern audience, not for 1800s readers. What is a half-day's ride?
 * "It became known as "Sisson's-on-the-McCloud"—popular with hunters and fishermen." This is an unusual construction, and one which would be better suited for a folksy novel than an encyclopedia article. I suggest replacing the emdash with "and was" or something similar.
 * How is "Wyntoon" pronounced?
 * Compare "Justin Hinckley Sisson came to the area and established a hotel" with "He established the town of Sisson surrounding his inn". Are the hotel and the inn the same structure? Varying the language can be helpful, but I think in this case it's a little confusing. Assuming they are the same structure, it should be consistently referred to by the same word.
 * "The railroad was completed in 1887 and brought miners, hunters, fishermen, loggers, naturalists and tourists." Brought them where?
 * "The multi-wing lodge, dramatic with its stone walls and slate roof" The characterization of the lodge as "dramatic" is not a fact, it is the opinion of one author. This distinction should be made clear in the article, or else the description should be rewritten to something more objective.
 * "and included an 800-book library with room for hundreds of Native American baskets." Should there be an "a" between "with" and "room"? It seems silly to describe a library by how many baskets can fit inside. Shea Stadium could probably fit thousands of Native American baskets inside, but that's not really relevant, is it?
 * "Polk's design was pictured in July 1899 in The American Architect and Building News which described it as a "California Mountain Home"." Lots of problems here. First off, citation definitely needed. Second, "pictured" should probably be "featured". Third, does the "California Mountain Home" really clarify anything here? It's a home that was built by a mountain in California, why would they describe it as anything else?
 * "The dining room enjoyed a three-sided view" No it didn't. Dining rooms aren't people. Even if they were, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to speculate as to what emotions they would have.
 * "and diners could take the air on a wraparound porch." Take the air? Are they birds?
 * A general note, before I go any further: Much of the language used in this article is highly questionable. It seems to me that much effort has been made to write the prose using the same vocabulary as is present in the sources. No. Bad. Language has evolved in the past 100 years. I strongly suggest going through the entire article and updating it to a more encyclopedic tone.

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe I have addressed each of these good points. Thanks for your review! Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)