Wikipedia:Peer review/North Potomac, Maryland/archive1

North Potomac, Maryland

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to Good Article. I have not been able to find any examples of a GA for a Census Designated Place, so I am in unfamiliar territory. I am aware of some of the changes being made at Census and the US Geological Survey (major sources), and understand that some changes are scheduled to be finalized March 31. Any suggestions on how to handle those are always welcome. I have found it difficult to get enough reliable sources. For example: anyone who has been in North Potomac will notice that gray squirrels are everywhere, yet I felt like nothing could be said about that because there are no books, government web sites, or newspaper articles that mention this. The other two major items for North Potomac are the Asian population and the good schools—I was able to find a newspaper article or two for those topics.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi TwoScars, I think this has a solid base for being a good article, but could use some work first. To begin with, the lead feels too short for the total length of the article. It also has a bit of a boosterish feel - it's a "better" place to live, near "desirable" jobs. I think that ought to be toned down to be more NPOV, or at least qualified with who has said these things.
  • Lead is now three paragraphs, and includes more history and no boasting. TwoScars (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The new and improved lead looks much better! As a reader I think it's much more interesting to see the unique history of the area rather than just buzzwords about desirability. Some issues about the spoken-language thing in the first paragraph. You don't actually discuss native language in the rest of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead unless it's discussed later. I think you could get a decent-sized paragraph about it in Demographics assuming there's sourcing. The other thing is the phrasing "nearly 27 percent speaks Asian/Pacific Islander". I realize that Asian/Pacific Islander is a census category, but it's not a language or even really a language group, so grouping it that way is odd. It might read a bit more fluidly as something like "nearly 27 percent speak an Asian or Pacific Islander language" or "nearly 27 percent speak a language from Asia or the Pacific Islands". (Also there's no source for this. I assume it's an oversight?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Geography section could be trimmed of inline lat/long and database ID numbers, as they are not helpful to the casual reader (they are better off being included in an authority control template at the bottom of the page). If you really feel you must mention USGS having entries for both "North Potomac" and "North Potomac CDP", you could just say something like, "The United States Geological Survey lists both North Potomac and North Potomac Census Designated Place separately" and be done with it. But IMO you shouldn't bother, because the GNIS is notorious for being duplicative and inaccurate, and it doesn't really make a difference to the reader whether or not it has two entries for the same loosely-defined place or twenty.
  • Will fix this with a footnote.TwoScars (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Moved most of the ID detail to a footnote, including the lat/long. Want to have that info cited somewhere because it is in the infobox with no source listed. TwoScars (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • With reference to both this comment and the one above it, I'm not sure it's valuable to move this kind of extensive detail to footnotes. You can put references in the infobox if needed. The ID numbers don't need to be discussed in text, even as footnotes. They can be included in the infobox if there's a field for that, or the authority control template (I'm not sure how to work it, but the people who maintain it can probably help you). If not, just use those works as citations somewhere - anyone who wants the ID number can look at the citation and see it's State Database Whatever ID #12345. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• The public transportation section feels similarly over-burdened with detail about specific bus routes.
  • Moved the bus route detail to a footnote for citation purposes, and replaced in main text with a one-sentence summary.TwoScars (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • In my opinion the bus route detail is just not within scope, and moving it to a footnote doesn't make it any more so. We provide general-purpose encyclopedic information, we don't host information about specific bus schedules. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly experienced with CDP articles on WP, but I'm not sure it's necessary to keep stating that such-and-such has an address in This Town, while so-and-so has an address in That Town.
  • The word "address now appears only three times in the article. I have added a footnote that explains that the Post Office and Census definitions for North Potomac are not the same, and that some residents of North Potomac attend schools outside of the current North Potomac CDP. TwoScars (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That works better, much less cluttery. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall it's clear you've put a lot of effort and love into this article, which is awesome - I just think there's some detail that can be shed to release the excellent article within. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• • @Premeditated Chaos: - thank you so much for your good insights! I will try to apply them all in this article and in Travilah, Maryland too. TwoScars (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Overall I think this article is very well-written, and I think you'd very likely pass GA. Definitely something to be proud of. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)