Wikipedia:Peer review/Transportation in South Florida/archive2

Transportation in South Florida

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking for a wider variety of suggestions than I've gotten with the various (failed) GA and FA nominations. I've done massive reference overhauling and removed some of the more rote content that was copied from other articles (i.e. Miami#Transportation and section main articles). There's still more to do and every time I actually read some of my work in retrospect (which is always hard to do) it's never as clever as I thought when I was writing it. Peer Review one year ago stagnated with no input. When adding extra parameters to references to try to achieve the (apparent) minimum of five, the issues of link rot and removal came up. I am wondering if literally every online-only source would need to be archived. I have also noticed more lately relevant quotes from reference links being added inside the reference html. I could see where this would be useful and nifty in many instances in the article, but how much is too much? The article is far more overarching than any other "Transport in..." article I have ever seen, and this surprised me as I searched for guidance; I came to the realization maybe this could in fact be a template for others. From a macro perspective, how is the article? Is it quirky and awkward, or does it have the potential to be as good as I think it might be with little beyond technical tweaks? Does it stand a cold object's chance in a hot place of being featured? To this I might add, if a featured recognition would require a major overhaul including genericizing and removal of large amounts of content that could be perceived as outlying or risque to fit the pre-defined form factor, I would rather not pursue it.

Thanks, B137 (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?] Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7Dm, use 7 Dm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 Dm.[?] Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?] When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb). Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?] Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), offense (A) (British: offence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyze (A) (British: analyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), aging (A) (British: ageing), routing (A) (British: routeing), any more (B) (American: anymore), cosy (B) (American: cozy), curb (A) (British: kerb), program (A) (British: programme). Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, hasn't, don't, won't, Doesn't, Aren't, can't, wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am working on these automatic suggestions but am a little busy, also a nibbet of qualitative info I seek as much as a table of technical points that are bot-worthy or just need one simple but long and tedious edit to fix. B137 (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@B137: I have fixed the structure and grammar of the intro. This is quite a long article. Look at mine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jonathan_Mitchell/archive1 Ylevental (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)