Wikipedia:Peer review/Yogo sapphire/archive1

Yogo sapphire
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA and make it as good as possible. One specific question I have is: Note the coord ref in the lead which was done with a template. This makes the format of that ref different from all the others. Will this be a problem?

Thanks, Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Review by User:JonRidinger: I personally don't think you need the coordinates in the lead. Being compleyely unfamiliar with the topic, it's somewhat difficult to get an idea of where Yogo Gulch is, so I think a more general description in the lead and even the text is fine, using some better-known cities as references.  If you use the coordinates, I would keep them in the body of the article rather than the lead and specify that the coordinates are for Yogo Creek or that Yogo Gulch is located near the coordinates since the source is not for Yogo Gulch, but for Yogo Creek.  In FAC, they will really nitpick everything, but especially the lead.  If there's any fact in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, they won't like that.  If they feel the lead doesn't give a good summary, they won't like that either.  In examining the lead, does it touch on every major point in the article?  Basically look at each subheading in the article and make sure there is some kind of summary in the lead.  As for the source, I don't think it will be a problem.  The format didn't seem to be anything different.  Usually they don't like where sources have different date formats than the others (like day month, year vs. month day, year, or using all numbers).  I would italicize "Yogo" in the lead and the article for the sentence where it explains what Yogo means instead of having it in quotes.
 * In the location section, I would flip it over...mention "The area where Yogo sapphires are mined is a region historically inhabited by the Piegan Blackfeet people. In the Piegan Blackfeet language, the word "Yogo" means "romance, blue sky", although there is some debate about this." first, then go into the details about the area itself. The opening of every section should establish why the section is being included in the article and how it relates to the topic.  You would likely need to do some rewriting here, but mostly just for flow.  The ending where it mentions "some debate" may be something FAC will want you to elaborate on, even if it's a sentence or 2.  When I went through FAC, small facts I didn't think were important (like the name of a local park) were things they wanted a little explanation for (who the person was and why the local park was named after them).  Since the sources available don't seem to answer the question as to "what else" Yogo could mean, I would definitely encourage a little explanation.  It doesn't need to be lenghty by any means.
 * I will need to read more of the article to comment further, but at first glance here I would definitely advise breaking up the mining history section and renaming the main heading "History". Make sure A) everything in there is directly related to the subject, B) that it is organized, and C) that there's an opening paragraph, again, that connects the section to the main topic.  Having that many paragraphs in a row without a lower level subheading is difficult for most readers.  Adding a subheading or two would help it be better organized.  Breaking the history into periods is usually the best route because it's what most people expect (chronological).  On the picture captions, see if some can be trimmed down.  The picture captions shouldn't be paragraphs unto themselves.
 * I think the state gem section could be a subheading of the history section, since it's mostly talking about history anyway.
 * I will have another look tomorrow. Hopefully what I have so far has been of some help! All I can say for FAC is get ready for things you think will be over-the-top nitpicking.  --JonRidinger (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have worked this except only started subheading the history section as I'm not sure what else to do/where to subhead it. Thanks for helping. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you have done so far is great. In the history section, see if you can group the paragraphs into some kind of eras or periods.  I'm not sure the MOS for this, but 3-5 paragraphs is a good place to break a section.  For history, there could be subheadings about the different time periods or whoever owned the mine at the time and the state gem section could be moved into the area it chronologically happens and incorporate other events that happened at the same time. If you can't seem to find a clear place to break, do a little movement of sentences to get certain decades together.  There are several options.  The subheadings just make for an easier read and navigation.  Also, while this is not a problem in most of the article, make sure each paragraph ends with a citation.  There are only a few places I noticed this.  It was something that came out a lot in FAC.  One is in the first paragraph of History and the other is the first paragraph of Location.  It may just be as easy as moving where a citation is.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * External links: One more thing I noticed is the External links section. Really examine that and be sure to read WP:EL.  I think the list could be trimmed a bit.  Like the JSTOR article is great, but people who don't have a subscription to JSTOR can't read the whole thing.  Also, if there is uncertainty on whether an external link could be used as a reference, it probably shouldn't be used as an EL.  Also make sure that ELs are directly relevant to the topic.  The Smithsonian link, for instance, should link to an example of the Yugo sapphire directly rather than the general page.  This article isn't about gemstones in general, it's about a specific one, so the links need to provide additional information on the subject that couldn't otherwise be included in the article.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Worked all this but I'm getting brain freeze on the history breakup. I'll have to try tomorrow. If you're inclined, take a stab at it. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can totally understand that. I will try and look it over this evening or tomorrow and see if I can come up with anything.  --JonRidinger (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I sectioned it by decades and did some minor moving around. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)