Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of National Historic Landmarks in New York/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

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 and co-developers would like feedback towards attaining Featured List status for the article and its subarticle, List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City. There are 50+ NHL list articles in progress, but none have yet been nominated for Featured List, so standards aren't entirely clear. A lot of work has been done on this article, on the NHLs in NYC subarticle, and on the NHL articles they index, by many people. Its current condition is built upon work done by others elsewhere (in developing the NHL list table format, on developing NRHP infobox format and generator tool, on many supporting articles on architects, NRHPs and NHLs in general, and many other topics). This the biggest state list (it has 257 NHLs in two parts), and it is easy to get bogged down for a long time in implementing any specific additional improvement to the site descriptions or to the 257 articles it covers, so peer reviewer guidance that weighs cost and benefit considerations especially would be appreciated.

Thanks, doncram (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said: the principal co-developers are Dmadeo and Daniel Case, who together had built up a list of many of the NHLs in NY before i stumbled in, who together have since photographed the majority of the pics for articles, and who have developed many/most of the better articles and better descriptions. I should apologize now also for not checking with them about the timing of this peer review; I am hoping they can participate actively but I do not know their availability. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm fine with the timing. doncram has taken the lead in building out the complete list of articles and applying a consistent approach to including all sources and references. I'm just happy to help out the team dm (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments edit

First off the list looks good and obviously has had a tremendous amount of work put into it. I think it already meets many of the WP:FLC criteria, but it has to meet all of them.

    • Thank you first of all for your extensive and helpful comments. I will try to respond as best I can, but I am not sure how this is supposed to work, so please bear with me. I think it may help if I acknowledge to you that I agree on a couple big points up front: (1) that the article needs copyediting for spelling out numbers and units and many other "small" (if you don't mind my term) matters, and (2) there are some big organization problems. The big problems will have to be addressed before many of the small ones. Your comments make these big points clear, and I will try to address those in comments below and in the edits to come. (Dmadeo and Daniel, if/when you are reading this please jump in !) You also make some comments about specific content matters, and I am hoping for more comments from you or others about the nature of the NHL site descriptions, especially. I can expand about what I mean along these lines later, depending on the further discussion. Mainly, thanks! doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are very welcome - some Peer Reviews are still active after more than a month, so there is a lot of time. DIfferent people do different things replying - some will strike points that have been addressed, others will use Done or Fixed or similar terms. I would address organizational issues and MOS first, then work on the lead (since it is a summary, it makes sense to wait until the article is set before writing a summary). The copyedit could then be last - I know someone who does a very good job with copyedits / proofreading and would be glad to ask when the article is there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some WP:MOS issues:

  • The semi automated peer review suggestions are useful, especially expanding the lead paragraphs, checking for over-linking, the MOS numbers issues (non-breaking space, spell out units), linking years with full dates, and footnotes coming right after punctuation.
    • About the lead: The WP:LEAD guidelines are that the lead should be 1-4 paragraphs before the first section. I had made it 4 paragraphs, but it got reduced down to 1 paragraph when 3 big ones were moved to a new "Overview" section. I agree that the lead needs to be developed more, but I am not sure whether those overview paragraphs ought to be brought back up or left as a section of that name, or named something else. If left as a section, then it seems the intro has to provide an overview of the overview, not sure how that would read. Can a lead be longer than 4 paragraphs? doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would summarize the overview information here (broad overview of categories perhaps), perhaps also summarize the geographic info (already mentions NYC vs rest of state, but which county has the most, which has the least, any with no NHLs, etc). I would also mention the separate other lists (NYC already is mentioned, but also mention the state historic sites, the NPS sites (if they stay in - they may be a good second sublist) and the former NHL sites. It is helpful to find a model article or two (I would look at the other featured lists) and see how they handle things. Not sure if this is the best model in the world, but List of Pennsylvania state parks (which Dincher, VerruckteDan and I did most of the work on) covers 120 modern parks, with three smaller lists of former parks and name changes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Intro now covers distribution of NHLs by county, in broad strokes (that there are 86 in New York county, down to zero in each of 12 counties. This is summarizing what can be determined by sorting the lists by county, which is okay. List of Pennsylvania state parks is a helpful example. Wording of intro could be improved, but fundamentals are there now, I think. Done? doncram (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand what over-linking is, or whether it is a problem in this article. I don't think there are extraneous links. Specific examples would help me to understand. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took it from the script- let me see if I can find some examples Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The script points me to WP:CONTEXT where one issue is having the same link multiple times. In this NHL list, each instance of each county name is linked, not just the first one, so that would raise red flag for the script. However, we want each county name to be linked as (a) it is a sortable list so the order can change, and (b) readers may have focussed in on one NHL row and it is convenient for them to have the county link available there. Our treatment is consistent with WP:CONTEXT I believe. doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suspect in an article, this restriction makes sense, but in this list and especially inside the table, we really do want everything to be linked. Does anyone disagree? dm (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another issue for the script is that more than 10% of the article may be in links. In WP:CONTEXT or somewhere else, I saw mention that 10% is an upper limit guideline. It is a feature, not a bug, for this NHL list table to link every site name, every NHL designation date, every town, and every county. So this would drive the script crazy but I think it is okay. doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, one factor driving up the percentage of characters that are within links is the long links for each county name, which in fact link to "List of Registered Historic Places in ______ County, New York", rather than merely linking to "______ County, New York". Linking to the RHP lists was a design choice we made a long time ago. Now frankly I think it would be more helpful for readers to link to the county article instead of the RHP list, which might simply be surprising or confusing. Other's thoughts? doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sounds like you have figured out what triggered the PR script here. I think linking to the counties would be more useful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think for someone on this page, the most likely destination would be not the county page, but the more specific "list of historical places in that county", each of which also have (or should have) a link to the actual county. It's much harder to get where you want to go in the opposite direction. Let's fix it if it makes sense from the usability POV, rather than just try to fix it to make the script happy. dm (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Since the county list contains the county link, as well as the NRHP places in that county, that is fine. This is a list of NHLs after all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree; the link should be to the "list of historical places in that county", which should have the link to the county itself near the top. It's much harder to go in the other direction.--Appraiser (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't feel too strongly about it, will leave as is (linking to county RHP lists). doncram (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • Spelling out numbers that start a sentence and numbers less than 10 is an issue that i have been aware of; I was happy leaving sentence-starters and 1-9 as numerals while the numbers were still in flux, sorry not to have addressed this before. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now spelled out numerals 1-9. Searching on " 1 ", " 2 ", etc. shows no remaining violations. I think i addressed all the sentence-starting numerals, and also all footnote-starting numerals. Done doncram (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-breaking spaces between numbers and units is something i haven't paid attention to, will look for instances of that to fix. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, found and fixed several instances within NYS list, none were noted or found in NYC list. Should be done with this now. doncram (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just ran the PR script to fix some minor issues, including nonbreaking spaces. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
    • Placing footnotes being right after punctuation is something that I have been trying to do, but I gather there are places that need fixing, will look for and address those. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were many instances in the "Overview" section, now fixed. doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Done.[reply]
    • Not sure what the "linking years with full dates" issue is yet. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, seems to be about wikilinking any full dates, with interest in allowing readers' choices of date formatting to be displayed. Found and fixed all instances in both NYS and NYC lists, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • Make sure that the there is nothing in the lead that is not also in the article (NYC stuff - see next point), and that the major points in the aritlce (headers and subheaders) are also at least mentioned in the lead.
    • Will have to come back and address this after the organization issues settle down. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Summary style, there should be a summary of the NYC list and {{Main}} introducing it.
    • Yes, this is helpful and obvious once you say it. Thanks for the pointer to the Summary Style guide, too. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, i setup a section "Current NHLs in NYC" correctly now I think, indicating the main article on the NHLs in NYC topic is the NHLs in NYC list article. But what is the top of the NHLs in NYC list article, now viewed as a subpage, supposed to show? Currently it shows: "Main article: List of National Historic Landmarks in New York." which makes sense in terms of indicating that it is part of a bigger article. But they shouldn't both refer to each other as the main article, should they? doncram (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it is confusing - I looked at Isaac Newton, which uses several sub-articles. There is no {{main}} on the sub articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removed the link from top of NHLs in NYC article. doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviation NHL should be given right after an early use, probably the wikilinked one, i.e. The United States' National Historic Landmark (NHL) program is operated under... Other abbreviations (NYC, NYS, etc) should be given similarly.
    • Yes. Thanks. I'm going to go try to address this and maybe more, before responding further here. doncram (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now NHL and NYC abbreviations are defined at earliest opportunity, and NYS is eliminated, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not so sure about "NYS" as an abbreviation, i.e. legacy of NYS's leading role in mental health care could just as easily be legacy of the state's leading role in mental health care (and see next).
    • Okay, good. Am trying now to eliminate all usage of NYS abbreviation. Changed to "legacy of the state's leading role" in that way. doncram (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I use the search function of my browser to check things like this. NYS may be better as "New York state" or whatever in particular cases. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point taken, search used, found more NYS abbreviations to eliminate. doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • The headings should not repeat the name of the title, so "Former National Historic Landmarks in New York State" could probably just be "Former NHLs", and "Current NHLs in NYS outside NYC" could be just "Current NHLs outside New York City" (the title tells us they are in New York). I would also try to be consistent on the use of abbreviations (NHL in the header is probably OK, not as sure about NYC).
  • Per MOS Numbers: In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million).
  • There are a few terms in the Overview section that seem questionable as POV or peacock words unless they are direct quotes or from sources not cited: ...4 rather spectacular engineering landmarks including 2 bridges. perhaps 24 mansions, opulent for their day,
    • Dropped the "rather spectacular". I think those 4 may all be engineering landmarks described by Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) reports but have not confirmed for all 4; calling them engineering landmarks should still be okay even if not, as they are engineering works and they are landmarks by being NHLs. Not sure about dropping the "opulent for their day" descriptor for mansions. I am thinking in particular about Hyde Hall, which was, per its article, in its post-Revolutionary War days probably the largest mansion in the U.S. But seeing it now, it is a lot smaller than many upscale homes, as upscale homes now are so extravagant (frankly i cannot believe that master suites have their own kitchens so no one has to interact with the rest of the family). The mansions were opulent and big for their day, but not for now. I guess a quote is needed, or it should be dropped also? doncram (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the original sources make it clear they were opulent for the day, I think it is fine to keep these terms, especially "opulent", but they may then need a separate ref to the specific source. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't be able to find a ref. "opulent for their day" dropped. doncram (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • I think when I count here I get 26, not 25 - Fully 25 sites are primarily military, including 13 fort sites (5 standing forts, 3 fortified houses, and 5 ruins),[6] 5 other battlegrounds,[7] 7 military headquarters, training facilities, arsenals and armories,[8] and one shipwreck.[9]
    • Yes that seems to total to 26. Changed to Fully 26 places, emphasizing these 26 are immovable places (as opposed to ships gadding about). The shipwreck is from the French and Indian war, and is not moveable, so i wanted to keep it with other older sites rather than include with the WW II+ ships. The term Land sites would preclude covering Plattsburgh Bay of revolutionary war which is one of the 5 battlegrounds (A water area is not ground per se but it can be a battleground, i hope. Battle area? I chose battleground rather than battlefield which sounds more like terra firma to me). Perhaps could yet be improved. doncram (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the 25 military sites (which includes a shipwreck), we then read about 11 ships, including 3 warships and a WWII tugboat. Perhaps say 24 land based military sites, then talk about ships and the shipwreck? Also the preceding sentence says the military sites are Civil War and earlier, then we hear about a WWII (D-Day) tugboat.
    • Reworded to be 2 warships and a tugboat that served in WW II, 1 warship that served in Vietnam. Given new emphasis on place-ness of the preceding 26 military places, hopefully this reads better. Perhaps could still be improved. doncram (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the List itself, I would strive for clarity and try to be consistent throughout. For clarity, I would explain the alternate names are those of "State Historic Sites". You might also want to have some sort of symbol (asterisk?) for these. As an example of consistency, I would only have one picture per entry (some have 2 or 3) and you might want to try using cropped versions of some photos so they are not as tall (just Sousa's face, for example).
    • About multiple images: I introduced these to address layout balance problem for some rows, where very short and flat pics were on same row as fairly long description. An example too short wide pic was the front parthenon view of the Buffalo and Erie Historical Association Building. Another was the panorama of Fort Niagara. Putting in a second pic bulks it up to a better visual balance, and looks good to me. Visual problem is worse when your browser window is not full screen. Mitigations: Dm dropped 1 of the 2 Adirondack pics, so there is no longer any early jarring multiple pics. Dropped all down to 2 pics max, by dropping 1 out of formerly 3 pic Huguenot and Fort Niagara rows. The remaining double pics are Buffalo and Erie; Fort Niagara; Huguenot Street (1 house does not a neighborhood make, 2 conveys better i think); and Hudson River district (where Daniel especially likes his pic of the view across, and I especially like his pic of Wilderstein, and i think the 2 together look great). I would further add a 2nd pic to bulk up the too wide and short D. M. Martin house by Frank Lloyd Wright, if one were available. So, the problem is mitigated by eliminating threesomes. I personally think the remaining pic pairs look good and serve a purpose outweighing value of absolute consistency on 1 pic per row. Further thoughts? doncram (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cropping any too-tall pics like Sousa's, for visual balance, is a great idea. We do want to replace any pics of persons by pics of the houses instead, but we should crop that one for now, and use cropping for others too. Thanks! doncram (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the MOS rules on captions apply to the descriptions - if they are not a complete sentence, do not end them with a period.
  • I would give a reference for the Location and County columns.
  • I would try to make the many notes on the categories clearer and consistent, for example: Note 56 does not give the architect's name.
    • Note 56 architect name now given. Other editing is possible. I was thinking those those footnotes, in general, were working, but was worried they may be unusual and be criticized. In a sense these categorizations are original research, as no one has ever counted up the NHLs in NY by category in this way, to my knowledge. I am trying with the footnotes to buttress that those counts are obvious, non-controversial facts. And then it is a further challenge to make the footnotes potentially readable and useful on their own. If they are okay in general, what would make them clearer? doncram (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps a brief explanatory phrase / intro for all. The architects are currently just names and structures, so "Architects X and Y designed A, B, and C" might be clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried phrasing each of the architects' list of works footnotes formatted as "Firstname Lastname designed Building A, Building B and Building C." Does this look okay, or could it be improved in any way? doncram (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry I missed this before - I would try to be consistent with what is in the article and what is in the footnote - two examples: article says "Louis Sullivan", note has "L. Sullivan" and the other is "McKim, Mead, and White" but the footnote omits the "and' as in "McKim, Mead, White". I find it useful to print the article out and go through it with a red pen to check things like this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Argh, i see I missed spelling out Louis Sullivan and McKim, Mead, and White, and similarly missed spelling out several other architects. Now fixed; all of the architect names are fully spelled out in the architect footnotes. I am learning from this process...if I was doing over I would certainly do the printing out and going through all on these matters, first.... doncram (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way the architect footnotes, although they all are now sentences, could use further refinement. When the footnotes were just cryptic notes, it didn't seem to matter to me to distinguish between when an architect was "the" designer, vs. when he contributed along with others to a design, vs. when he published a design in an architectural pattern book that was implemented by a builder in this particular site which the architect himself never even saw. All of the architect footnotes bear revisiting to check, from the corresponding building articles, what is the nature of the architect's involvement in each site. doncram (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the footnotes supporting counts of NHLs of various types: I have now edited those footnotes so all are complete, standalone sentences. Some of the sentences could be better, still, if the goal is for them to be really interesting reading on their own. doncram (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" should not give List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City as that is already cited prominently in the article.

Organization

  • State Historic Sites needs a more detailed intro paragraph. Since the list is about NHLs, there may be some at FLC who question the inclusion of this material here, but I think a good intro can make it clearer.
    • I am considering opening a new article Historic Preservation in New York or some such title, to discuss the options for historic preservation, which range in degree of protection from U.S. owned and protected areas, like National Parks and National Historic Sites, down to mere municipal designations or to private ownership without any external designation. State Historic Sites would fit into such a hierarchy, and the list could reside there perhaps. Or, the argument needs to be made in this NHL list, that it is a list of NHL or higher protection of landmarks. The SHSs are more highly protected than NHLs in private ownership. For many if not all of the SHSs, the sites would be NHLs if the state had not protected them first, I believe. Unsure for now which way to go, but will try developing a Historic Preservation article. doncram (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article sounds good. I think these State Historic Sites can be kept in the article, though the FLC input may differ. The more clear it is why these are included, both in the lead and here (in an article whose title does not mention them), the better chance they have of staying in through FLC. This same argument applies below to NPS sites. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wish could report having an Historic Preservation in New York article, will get it started in next day or two. doncram (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did draft an article Historic Preservation in New York but it is not great, I don't really want to refer to it directly, except in "See Also" for now. Hopefully not needed. I revised the lead to mention the state historic sites and present them as NHL-eligible, and to cast the whole list as being National Historic Landmarks and equivalents. Perhaps someone else can word it better, but I am done.
  • Areas in the United States National Park System I can understand why this is included here, but this seems to me most likely to be challenged at FLC as being tangential to the topic. It may be I am more sensitive because of the last FLC I was in, where we had to cut a whole section as being not sufficiently related to the topic.
    • Likewise the Federally protected historic sites, such as the Statue of Liberty which has been a National Monument since 1924 i think, are more highly protected than mere NHLs, and would surely have been named NHLs if not already more highly protected, I believe. Either for a Historic Preservation in New York type article, or defend better in this article. I am leaning to dropping mention of the non-historic areas in Federal protection. The nation-wide PDF list of NHLs, by the way, makes a point of listing the National Historic Parks, National Historic Sites, and other historic-oriented National Park Service areas in each state, after listing the state's NHLs. This fact can be used in arguing to keep the NPS areas in this NHL list article. Unsure for now which way to go, will see how Historic Preservation article goes. doncram (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would definitely mention that the national NHL list gives NPS areas here. See above comment on making it clear why these are here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the National Park Service areas section, I focused the listing of National Park Service areas upon only the historic ones, asserted that this is higher protection than afforded by NHL designation, pointed out these are listed with the NHLs in the NPS NHL document. I dropped the listing of four non-historic NPS areas from the text into just a footnote. Perhaps this is adequately addressed now. Done?
  • I might make the Former NHLs section into its own small table (two rows) giving the same info as the larger table. (added this after the rest).
    • Good idea, consistent with your treatment of former parks in List of Pennsylvania state parks, which is nice. Started the 2 row table. Will add another pic (or 2, before and after demolition?) for Edwin Armstrong House. doncram (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did that, the 2 row table should be okay now. doncram (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]

I hope this helps, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know there have been a lot of responses to Appraiser's helpful comments, so sorry not to have replied in a while. I think all of the points I made have been (or will be) addressed. Good work (and I agree that going through Peer Review and FAC / FLC is a real learning process). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser comments edit

I think it looks quite good, especially the high percentage of sites that have PD photographs of the improvements (I'm not thrilled about substituting a portrait for a house site though). I have just a few comments - really in preparation for WP:FLC, moreso than WP:Peer review:

Thank you so much for your comments. It is really helpful to receive observations from anyone outside of the active editors of this list-article. Of course I don't know all about what you individually bring to bear, but I do know you have specific experience in NHL list-articles, too. This peer review is in fact the only and last formal review stage available to prepare the list-article, before going to FL review. (As it is a list, taking it to Good Article review is not possible.) doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, sites are selected for NHL because they relate to a specific event, topic, trend, or activity that is a significant to U.S. history. After writing that I checked [1] and quote thus: "they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States." So, however it is said, I think many of the sites need the "description" column expanded, to include at least a sentence that conveys why the site is significant enough to be a NHL. e.g. #40, #68, and #97. Why are they in this list? Sure you can click on the site or the associated person's article and find out, but I think the significance should also be on the List article under description.
    • Thank you for being specific about 3 descriptions that grated for you, and for your general critique. I agree that those 3 specific NHL descriptions are inadequate, but I am not sure what the general goal should be for each description here in the list-article, and relatedly, what must be covered in each corresponding NHL article for the list-article to go forward. I assume that at a minimum we could agree that for an individual NHL article to achieve FA status individually, it would have to clearly convey what is its significance / what is its "exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States". We are not putting the individual NHL articles up, however. I suppose I think that a lower standard for the descriptions in this list-article is appropriate, perhaps that the descriptions (a) should be factually accurate and verified in their articles (and I am not positive they all are), (b) should be "interesting" (which may or may not involve describing what is nationally significant about the site) and perhaps (c) should cover only very salient facts that appear in the lead of the corresponding NHL article (although several current descriptions may go further). You seem to be taking a more stringent view that each needs to use (1) full sentences, and (2) accurately describe what the NHL significance of the site is. However, currently about 75 of the 147 non-NYC NHLs are rated stub, often because they are not really very well developed along the lines of fully describing their significance, which can be complex. (Their rating as stub is subjective, they could all be uprated to Start perhaps, but to really improve them would take real work.) It seems to me that NHL significance is multi-faceted for many sites in ways that are too complex to describe in the list-article. For example I think some buildings meet a kind of minimum standard, that they are not individually all that significant architecturally, and not individually really well associated with the life of a nationally important person, but they are somewhat old and somewhat interesting architecturally and somewhat associated with an important person, which is way too much for the list-article description to have to carry, IMO. I have in mind the John Paul Jones House in New Hampshire as I write that. Can I ask: (1) Would you be of the view that it is premature to bring this list-article to FL for the reason that not all articles covered adequately describe the national significance of their sites? and (2) Can you expand on what you think the descriptions in the list-article itself absolutely must cover. Others' views on these questions would be most appreciated, too. doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NHL 40, Fort Johnson's current description is simply: "Home of Sir William Johnson until 1763". I agree at least that that is not "interesting" enough yet. I am personally unclear on who Sir William Johnson is and why he might be important. doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • much improved by Appraiser, thanks. Done doncram (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NHL 68, Johnson Hall's current description is: "Later home of Sir William Johnson". I agree at least IMHO that that is not "interesting" enough yet. doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • much improved by Appraiser, thanks. Done doncram (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NHL 97, Old House's current description is: "Well-constructed English-style colonial house". I agree at least IMHO that that is not "interesting" enough yet. It should jolly well say how old the house is, at least, I think, and/or suggest that it is the "oldest" of some type.

doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • improved by Appraiser and revised by me, i think now Done doncram (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some verbiage in an attempt to say why a site is significant for some of them. Even if the individual articles are stubs or starts, I think the description column here should tell the reader why the site is listed and be interesting enough to inspire a reader to look at the individual articles.--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your numerous edits in one swoop were all helpful. I agree with the general sense of what you assert. We should not shrink from "selling" the articles somewhat, and we should put out enough of potential interest so that a reader can judge which she/he wants to "buy" further by going and visiting its article. Although we have to avoid "peacock terms" I gather, and whatever we say needs to be accurate and verifiable. doncram (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EVERY red link should be addressed for FLC. Either de-link, create a stub, or write an article.
    • Thank you for pointing this out. One red-link had crept into the "Former sites" section, when I responded to another Peer Review comment, and I have just eliminated that by fixing its link. I believe the FL standard would allow there to be some red-links, but I wouldn't want to have to side-track a FL discussion and defend why any particular red-link should be there, and I personally would simply prefer to have no red-links. doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen a list become FL despite its having red links, but it happened despite my objections. However I have been involved with FACs where a zero-tolerance for red links was expressed.--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd put "state historic sites" in a different article. They are outside the scope of this one, based on its title.
  • For the "former sites", I'd also include verbiage explaining why they were de-listed, if known.
    • Their descriptions do state "Demolished and de-designated in 1976" and "Relocated to Seattle, Washington". What type of different verbiage, or better formatting to make the de-listing more clear perhaps, might you prefer? doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - sorry. I was skimming. They're good.--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then, on this point, Done

Summary:Very nice list; lots of work exhibited. I think some FLC comments can be avoided in advance.--Appraiser (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you so much for commenting as far as you have already, and I personally am very anxious to hear and to address whatever other FLC-type comments might be obvious to you. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I was working on descriptions just now, I notice a mix of complete sentences with punctuation, sentence fragments with improper punctuation (periods following sentence fragments), and sentence fragment with no punctuation. I guess the mixture bothers me somewhat. I could see a case for adding the implied, This site is significant in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States because it is... at the top of the description column. Then the first fragment could follow that with a period. (e.g. "...the home of Susan B. Anthony, prominent 19th century womens' rights activist.") Then any subsequent information could be in a complete sentence. Otherwise every description could be with correct grammar and punctuation. The List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota is done that way. It will be interesting to see what FLC judges are looking for. Maybe we should nominate the Minnesota one at the same time - or maybe first, since it is so much smaller.--Appraiser (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mixing types of punctuation is probably bad, per se, but i am not yet convinced that all descriptions need to have the same structure in terms of sentence fragments and full sentences. If some/all begin with a sentence fragment ending in a period, as you suggest, then in any one it would not bother me for there also to be either a second sentence fragment also ending in a period OR a full sentence ending in a period. I would think that both options should be okay, that any one row is itself a standalone row that reads okay alone, that every row does not have to absolutely be the same as every other row. The reader looks at one row at a time, and is probably skimming it as an index to find something of personal interest to go into further by going to the article.
The List of National Historic Landmarks in Minnesota is an interesting experiment at least, with each description nicely whole and readable. I am not sure that the list works at FLC level with its current table layout and long descriptions, as for me the descriptions seem too long relative to the short photographs and other short fields. I would have other comments for it too, if comments were invited under a Peer Review now (otherwise I feel i have commented too much about it and some of the MN NHL articles already). But one more comment would be that its type of descriptions are too long for implementation in larger state NHL list-articles, so I guess I would assert at least mildly that its current descriptions should be changed for compatibility with List of NHLs in NY....
Question: What is best punctuation for multiple sentence fragments (which may or may not be the best way to go, but supposing it is)? Each fragment gets a period? No periods, but join by semi-colon(s)? Consider Adirondack Park description: "Largest publicly protected area in the lower 48 United States, largest National Historic Landmark, and largest and one of earliest areas protected by any state, at 6.1 million acres (25,000 km²). Established in 1885, later protected in "forever wild" section of New York state constitution." or alternatively ""Largest publicly protected area in the lower 48 United States; largest National Historic Landmark; largest and one of earliest areas protected by any state, at 6.1 million acres (25,000 km²); established in 1885; later protected in "forever wild" section of New York state constitution" doncram (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to the punctuation questions. Here's one quick description for semicolons.[2]
As for the amount of information to put in the description column, I agree that a few of the MN descriptions should be reduced. But the appearance depends to some degree on the user's monitor. Today, I am using a 17" monitor set at 1440 X 900 using Firefox with the browser window fully expanded. On the MN list 6/22 of the sites are height-limited by the photo and 16/22 are height-limited by the description text. In contrast, in the NY list only 3/148 are limited by the description text (all of which are currently missing pictures). To me, it looks like excessive white space in the description column, but to someone with a smaller monitor, it may look better. The deciding factor, I think, should be whether the description adequately conveys the reason for the site's existence on the list.--Appraiser (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various comments on Talk page of the article edit

Daniel Case added some comments in a talk section Talk:List of National Historic Landmarks in New York#Notes from my copyedit and there are other items noted before that section there too.

One point Daniel made was that the architects discussion should be listified. I just tried putting that into a list. I am not sure it is better or not; it does give more white space around their names and allows you to find a given architect more easily, if you are interested in doing so, but it costs more space before getting to the main table. Other thoughts welcome. doncram (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various comments were addressed by changes to the article, or by responses in the talk section. I think the more major points were addressed. doncram (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Consider this Done[reply]

Recent developments edit

Color scheme edit

Since the peer review started, a color scheme emerged in WP:NRHP for lists of NRHPs, to coordinate with colors in the NRHP infoboxes in articles. This list-article now reflects that, with the number column to indicate NHLs vs. NHLDs vs. NHS vs NMON vs. some other categories. The color scheme evolved, with the colors themselves fixed within templates not within this list-article, and with an explanatory footnote linking to a legend of colors being developed. Comments from reviewers would be welcome. doncram (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Historic Sites edit

I tried making the list of State Historic Sites into a table. Although I do feel that one which I have visited, the Herkimer Home one, is really national landmark-worthy, some of the others are not seeming that noteworthy on a national scale. I am reluctantly tending towards dropping this section from the article. doncram (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Areas in National Park System edit

Likewise developed into a table. I personally think these are all "national historic landmarks", just some of them had higher specific designations already and don't need National Historic Landmark recognition, and that this table "works" with the article. Comments welcome. doncram (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/List_of_National_Historic_Landmarks_in_New_York/archive1&oldid=1078796883"