Stephens City, Virginia

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, I need to know how to proceed with some of the sections as others and I work to make the article Good Article material. Currently it is a B-Class and has had ALOT of work done, but still isn't quite GA-Class. The "History" section needs slimmed down, summarized, and evaluated. Some other sections need to be just checked over to see if they meet the status for GA. Thanks, NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised.

Comments by Doncram I just revised citation of NRHP nomination doc to include author, date, more. Could map showing location within Virginia be included near top, so reader gets big picture before or with getting location within county? Hope this helps. --doncram (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested that from a couple editors (a combo County/State map, like the ones the big cities have...see LA) but there is an ongoing discussion about maps and such, so that is being held up. If you know of anyone who is willing to make a couple maps (like the ones on the LA page) please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, nicely illustrated, but not ready for GAN. A lot of work has gone into it, but it has, I think, a major copy-paste problem that will probably require a complete re-write of the "History" section. (Please see my note about this further down in the review.) Here are some other suggestions for improvement and possible expansion.

Lead

History

Reconstruction, the railroad and a name change, 1866–1899

Geography

Government

Transportation

Religion

Layout

Possibilities for expansion

Other

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review Comments
Haven't read over everything (still at the top) but yes, "bicenquinquagenary" is a word. I actually had it sourced until a time ago when we decided that a source was unneeded. If the source is needed to confirm the word is an actual word, I can readd it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still reading...on the history...which we are actively trying to break down and use other sources...the Newtown History Center and Bryon C. Smith graciously gave use full access to their history section by OTRS ticket (number on the back of the Stephens City talk page). It was decided by discussion that the history was just far too long and wordy, so with the help of User:Parkwells and User:JonRidinger, we worked on getting the history section down to a better, more readable length. People went on spring vacations, so things got a little backed up, but we plan on moving along soon (very soon). I am working with the Newtown History Center on getting better sources (so we don't have to cite just Newtown History Center each time) on the quotes, information and such. Bryon C. Smith at Newtown History Center is essentially doing the bookwork for us, which is great. While we are keeping the information, we are changing how it is used, so we lessen the use of the Newtown History Center ticket information and more on an originally written section. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS ticket is good news; I didn't look at the talk page and didn't see it. I think "bicenquinquagenary" is apt to be challenged. My dictionary doesn't list it, and a couple of unreliable sources I checked expressed doubts about it. I don't usually check corrections after PR reviews; time is scarce. If you have specific questions, please ping me on my talk page. One other thing: I see that you've added "done" templates above; they tend to gum up the works at PR. Please use the non-image templates,  Done/✗ Not done, instead." Best of luck with the article. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a source to the word "bicenquinquagenary" on the page (waaaay at the top) and I can add it to the bottom. I think it got removed from the bottom section and not the top section. The source I have isn't the best one (like the NY Times), but it was the only one I could find. I can eliminate the word altogether if the source isn't the best for all (and to be honest, I don't think it is). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a better term, semiquincentennial, which is sourced to the Worcester Public Library in Worcester, MA. A MUCH better source than the one I had and according to Wikipedia (not actually sourcing them) the word isn't confused with a 10,000th anniversary. So much better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The problem with the OTRS ticket is that to me using it like this violates WP:NOTMIRROR (what's the point of copying a history readily available on a website to this article?) and the copied text was written as a town history, not an encylcopedic article. As a result, many of the POV and other wording problems that editors have commented on aren't from editors writing in such a way but simply copying what was there. Further, details appropriate for a town history aren't always appropriate for an encyclopedic article; in fact, most aren't, particularly many of the blockquotes used. As for the word for 250th anniversary, the best place to source it would be at Anniversary where the word is listed. A source for a word like that in this article seems out of place. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parkwells has taken a good chuck out of the history, made it waaay more encyclopedic (I agree it wasn't the best before) and kinda written it in his words, that isn't to say more work needs to be done...it does. It still follows the same line as the Newtown History Center one, but it now it kinda has a life of its own. Since Parkwells was on vacation work has halted a little, so at it's present, it is incomplete. I do believe that with more editing, we may be able to "break free" of the OTRS ticket history version (though I would like to keep the OTRS ticket around, if anything, just to show the unity of the town and Wikipedia) and the history to be it's own, encyclopedic, and GA material. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, a note on sources. Once Parkwells gets done editing, then I will go back to the Newtown History Center (they are doing the bookwork for me :)) and get sources for what Parkwells has come up with. Hopefully it won't take long on that front. Just don't want to get sources for something that might be removed. :) I did that, kinda funny story. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<----In writing a history it's better to have sources before it is written, that's why it's somewhat more difficult for Parkwells or myself to write the history section for this article. Remember, the history section is summarizing a much larger and more detailed history. The only reason I write a history section before adding sources is because I am familiar enough with the larger history to know that I do have the sources to plug them in. And I add them in before publishing it in the article. It's different here because I certainly don't know the history and I would imagine Parkwells is not familiar with the history that much either. An appropriate summative history can actually be written using just the Newtown History article because it is a sourced, reliable publication. Parkwells got the process going, but it is still a long ways from being an appropriate length for the size of the article and relative to the notability of the town. Speaking from experience, writing a section like that takes a lot of time and patience because you have to go back and look things over and make sure it all fits together.

Not sure what you mean by "keeping the OTRS ticket around to show unity". If it isn't needed (it really isn't), drop it because it will only lead to confusion from other editors, especially once the history section is rewritten and can stand on its own. It won't be interpreted as any type of "unity" between the town and Wikipedia, nor is such a unity appropriate (see WP:COI). The OTRS system is to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get sued for copyright infringement. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know we aren't anywhere near done with the history section. Parkwells was kinda editing as he seen things that needed taken out. If everything was sourced (and it can be) my fear is it would remain as is and not into the "tasty little morsel bite-sized pieces" that we need to be encyclopedic. So I was kinda letting him work and do whatever he wanted with the section and would come in behind and edit the sources in. I think he is still working on the language (POV words and such), weasel words, moving things around, outright deletions of sections not needed (and some really weren't) and stuff like that. He has done great work so far, but I know (with talking to you) that we aren't quite there yet.
My idea with "keeping the OTRS ticket around to show unity" was to show that (even if we don't source it ever, that at one time the Newtown History Center and Wikipedia were working together. I believe we will source the Newtown History Center in some form (so we can just source the page), but my thinking was that if we had the OTRS ticket there, it would show that connection. I think big and "in left field" sometimes. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In having sources, I don't necessarily mean "sourced" (i.e. referenced) in the article, but having the sources to read and write from, like physically in front of you. The references in the current history section definitely need moved around, but it's difficult to write a history section without having sources to go from. And while removing sections and POV/weasel words is great and needed, a lot of the work still needing to be done is taking the large amount of info and summarizing it, which involves actual writing as opposed to just removal. That's what takes time.
The Newtown History page will be referenced in the History section and likely other places within the article. Maybe not to the degree it is now (it has like 30 references right now), but still significant. It is already listed in the External links section as well. You really want to avoid even the appearance of an organization working "with" or "connected to" Wikipedia, even on something as innocent as a small town's article. Wikipedia works with individual editors who act on their own, not as part of a larger organization. But even then, I would say most editors don't even know what OTRS is (I wasn't all that familiar with it before editing this article), so there wouldn't be much of a "connection" anyway in the way you're thinking. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category