Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metacomet Ridge

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

Metacomet Ridge

edit
Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well written (although the lead section might be improved a bit), is well illustrated, is fully sourced, and appears to comprehensively cover the subject with the right level of detail (further details about individual geographic features are in about 40 other articles). Noroton (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moni3. Hello. I read through your article and have some suggestions.

  • the abbreviations for miles and kilometers in the lead probably doesn't need to be linked, and certainly not twice...as I went through I noticed you had done this irregularly. Take out all the links to measurements.
done Eliminated, leaving 1st instances only.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use parentheses very scarcely, such as only when abbreviating anagrams. So your parentheses in the lead and in "Naming" should be converted to regular prose in the sentences.
done--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a 1-sentence paragraph in "Naming"
done Expanded.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that you're writing for people who have never seen what you're writing about, so generalities such as Several shorter parallel ridges flank it here and there don't help them understand what it looks like and why it's important.
done --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map would be very helpful if you can fine a free use one.
No map availabe; description will have to suffice. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Mount Warner in italics in "geography"?
done Italics eliminated.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "peters out" as a repeated phrase. It seems informal to me, unless it a geologic phrase I didn't know existed.
done Changed.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence will probably have to be revised: One way to imagine this is to picture a layer cake tilted slightly up with some of the frosting (the sedimentary layer) removed in between. It snaps from formal to informal language.
done Revised tone.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photos are nice, but there are places, such as the "Ecology" section where it looks crowded. Different browsers may look different from what you see.
done Removed some photos & rearrainged others.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make your refs easier to read by making it two columns. And you will eventually have to clean them up to make them absolutely perfect. Seriously - I've spent hours on the correct grammar of references. It's tedious, but you can't pass FA without doing it.
done References revised to conform with Wikpedia style. Left in one column, however, as a two column references did not seem to display well on smaller monitor. Many feature articles also use 1 column reflist.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at the history section. You will need a copy edit for the article, and I would actually recommend a peer review. There are passages that are difficult to read, and quite a few breaches of WP:MOS. I wish you luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done Several editors beside myself have gone through the article since & have made adjustments for WP:MOS.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Moni3. Thanks for your feedback. I'm the primary author of the article, not the nominator (I have too much humility to nominate work of my own work), but I'm happy to see it up here & under scrutiny, and I'm glad to respond by making adjustments to the work. So far: removed links to measurements; eliminated 1 sentence paragraph, most parenthetical sentences, generalities you mentioned, italics for Mount Warner, and "peters out"; reduced informal tone in layer cake sentence; revised references to Wikistyle (as best as I could interpret it). Left the phots as is; they look fine on my 13-inch screen & smaller (someone with a larger screen will have to look at it & adjust if necessary). Tried the double column reference list; looked less readable on my screen, so I left as is. As for the difficult passages and WP:MOS, I changed the few I noticed; if there are others, I'm too close to the article to see them. Be well, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjusted images.
  • No map availabe of the Ridge (that I'm aware of).--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have now gone over the article since it was originally posted by Noroton; comments?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—Well-written indeed. You could remove "very" from the lead. North–south" in the infobox needs an en dash. Please consider removing the spaces between adjacent citation numbers (to minimise the visual intrusion—some have no spaces already). Hyphen in "well-preserved"? I think US writers do this. "Rams head" is hyphenated on the image info page; check dictionary? Even merge the words? Unsure. I've hyphenated "23-mile x", etc, but there are a few more to do (not the converted abbreviations, though—see MOS). ".5 miles"—MOS says leading zero and singular required; but why not spell it out? Thanks for not autoblotching the full dates in the reference list, nor using that accursed on [date]. Refs 18 and 24 need an en dash. Would be nice to list more authors for the web-site info in the references. Unclear reliability/status of some of the info; for example, can the Sleeping Giant Park Assocation be trusted? Who is the author? Tony (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Tony1. I've addressed the points you've made as follows:
  • Removed "very", hyphenated Ram's-head, converted .5 to one-half, checked over hyphenation.
  • Went through & looked at the places where you suggested en dashes; they seemed already in place, but I pasted the en dash provided in the Wikipedia dash article anyway just in case there was a slight variation in length.
  • I was able to find authors for only one of the references you inquired about. As for the other ones, most are organization or agency websites that lack authorship details. Sleeping Giant Park Association is indeed considered a reputable source of information on the Sleeping Giant; they have been around for nearly 100 years, publish books, conduct research and education, and are considered the primary authority on the landscape feature. Authorship of the history detailed on the website appears to be collaborative. If you have questions about any of the other sources used in this article, I'd be glad to answer them as well.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • done--There are no unresolved links. I re-checked them again. Only one of the article's external links registers as "May not contain content", however, if you click on it, it takes you where it should.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony, I hadn't realized that. The use of the --done-- template has been so widespread on the FAC page I assumed it was acceptable. I won't add more of them, but I'll leave the ones that are already in place so those following this article won't be confused by their deletion. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

    • I think the lead is too short. See WP:LEAD for suggestions.
    • Please be consistent with writing out numbers. two miles (3 km) should be 2 miles (3 km) or two miles (three km). Also be consistent on whether the article is writing out the first unit (miles vs mi). Both forms are used in the article right now.
    • The first section left me a bit confused.
      • Do you know why the USBGN suddenly recognized Metacomet Ridge in January?
      • Need a non-breaking space between numbers and their units/qualifiers (35 miles, etc)
      • Who gave the ridge the name Metacomet? The article explains that other entities don't call it that, and that the name is taken from a sachem, but does not explain how the ridge came to be named that. Given the heading "naming the ridge", I expected it to explain how the ridge came to be named.
    • Do you have a citation for the fact that Mount Warner is geologically unrelated?

Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Karanacs. Responses:

  • Made the measurements consistent.
  • The USBGN does not indicate why they included the name into their database in January of 2008. I could speculate that it has to do with the recent inclusion of much of the ridge in the newly proposed National Scenic Trail Act and the NPS use of the name, but it would not be appropriate to include speculation in the article. The USBGN is constantly adding information to its database. And both the NPS and USBGN are Interior Department agencies.
  • Nb spaces included.
  • I do not know who gave the Metacomet Ridge its name; I'm not sure anyone knows for sure. However, I did expand the section to indicate that the name of the sachem has been widely used to describe a variety of geographic features and businesses in the region, and I renamed the section from "Naming the ridge" to "Geographic definitions" to avoid the allusion that the section will describe exactly how the ridge received its name. I'm not sure that I'm happy with "Geographic definitions" however; if anyone has a better suggestion, please let me know.
  • The mount Warner reference was already in place, however, due to image placement on a screen your size, (my size, too), it appears that the paragraph ends sooner than it does. I added a second reference to avoid this illusion. Moving the image was more problematic.
  • Finally, with regard to the lead, I read WP:Lead & the lead seems to be appropriate as far as I can tell. If there is something specific you think it is missing, please let me know. I'd also like to hear what others think of the lead in its current state: is it effective?

Again, thanks!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something, but when I looked at the article in edit mode, I did not see & nbsp; or {{nowrap}} used to create non-breaking spaces for any of the units/qualifiers. How did you address this?
WP:LEAD states that an article that is over 32kb (as this one is), should have a lead of 2-3 paragraphs. The lead should also be a summary of the article, and this lead does not mention anything in the ecosystem, history, conservation, or recreation sections. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was confused about the non-breaking spaces. In general, the whole issue of converting measurements has been very frustrating. At this point I have converted most of the measurements using the convert template, which includes non-breaking spaces (at least WP:style says it does). I have applied the nowrap template to others. The conversions at the bottom of the article are tabulated, so they don't need non-breaking spaces. I think I found them all, but in an article this size it's easy to miss something, please let me know if I did.
  • Ecosystem was already mentioned in the lead; I've expanded that part of the article to mention your other suggestions.
--Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Metacomet_Ridge&oldid=1138466824"