Wikipedia:Peer review/National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York/archive1

National Register of Historic Places listings in Syracuse, New York

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it up to Featured List standards, and I am too close to be objective. There is one recently added NRHP thta I will be creating a stub for and getting the picture. Suggestions about the opening text are welcome.

Thanks, Lvklock (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A few of the properties don't have anything in the summaries. That's an easy fix. I would think all the summaries should be two or three sentences long. Might a capsule history of Syracuse at the beginning be in order? Otherwise it looks good. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did some work on the summaries last night. Some of the articles are just stubs, and don't merit more than a sentence at this time. I have one more to write, which is trickier because the article linked doesn't really address the history, so I need to add a section of history to Thornden Park, and then will write a summary. I know the intor needs work....am formulating. Lvklock (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a summary in for Thornden Park and improved the underlying article. dm (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Per your request, and given that I'm an SU alum, I have taken a good look at this:

• You can write a longer intro, following along the lines of what we've done at List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. Tell us about the trends these listings reflect. What aspects of Syracuse's history come out here? What are the oldest buildings listed? Do they have anything to do with the city's early, pre-industrial settlement? Anything to do with salt mining in what's still known as the Salt City? Do the churches or any buildings listed reflect later developments, such as new immigrant groups settling in the city? What major architects have work in the city (besides, of course, Ward and I.M. Pei, who designed the first of the two Newhouse buildings at SU, but that's too new to be listed)?

• I would actually consider that, AFAIC we don't need a separate article for an MPS limited to properties in one subdivision that has already merited a separate NRHP list article (properties spread across multiple subdivisions, like the NYS post offices or the Hudson Highlands Multiple Resource Area I've been working on, are another matter). Thus, I think, you could have a section discussing the Ward properties and their historical significance instead of a separate list article, and noting that they were submitted and listed together, then make your list article a deep-link redirect to that section.

I agree that having a section in the text on the Ward Wellington Ward MPS properties would be very appropriate. It has separately been discussed that the now-separate Architecture of Ward Wellington Ward in Syracuse MPS article should be merged into the Ward Wellington Ward article on the architect, and the present nominator agreed. I suppose the target for the MPS material could be in this list-article instead or also. So, as a matter of supporting this Syracuse NRHP list-article, i think that merger out of whatever material is in the MPS article to both places should be done now or before FL nomination of this list. I'm not sure, but am guessing what Daniel Case meant by making "your list article a deep-link redirect to that section" unless it means to replace the MPS article (which i think i started) by a redirect to the new section on WaWeWa here in this article. Sure, or redirecting to the WaWeWa architect article would be another option. doncram (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sources: Every summary needs to be sourced to wherever the info contained came from, usually the NRHP nom. It's tedious and laborious but when it's done it'll kick butt.

That's about it. I hope you are able to get the remaining properties and write articles about them. And get a nice photo of Walnut Park at this time of year, when it's nice and green (And don't give up on getting a shot from the upper floors of Bird Library, either). I am glad to see this so far along ... one day National Register of Historic Places listings in Poughkeepsie, New York (a smaller city with more listings, because it's older, but in many ways similar) will be as good. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input. The suggestions for what to include in the intro are especially helpful to my accountant brain! I thought it had been decided (maybe at List of NHLs in AL featured list review) that each summary shouldn't have a footnote, as they summarize sourced articles. Or, should the sources be listed, but not footnoted? Definitely something to work on. I'm off at lunch today to get a pic of Temple Society of Concord, the newest listing. Perhaps can run by Byrd Library as well, and get the park. Lvklock(talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just took a look at List of NHLs in AL, and they absolutely are all footnoted. OK, will do! Lvklock (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think every description needs to be footnoted, just unusual assertions that stand out as needing extra support. The overall column of descriptions should have a footnote saying basically: "see the articles". It would be more helpful as precedent for other NRHP list-articles, to establish that excessive footnoting is not needed. Please see discussion in peer review and featured list review for List of NHLs in NY (a list-article that was not promoted to FL for other reasons). It would help to establish a more solid precedent, to save wasted effort in putting in excessive footnotes that detract from reader experience of these list-articles. doncram (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For the article to be a featured list, everything in it must be clearly supported by external references. Some featured list articles avoid numerous footnotes because they reference a single source that supports all (or most) of the list contents, but that may not be possible in this instance. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You've received some good suggestions here. I made a couple of small tweaks to the article. In my fairly cursory review of the article, I noticed a few other minor things that could stand to be improved:

• The following sentence in the lead is both awkward and unduly self-referential: "There are 45 properties and districts in Onondaga County but outside of Syracuse, and they are in the accompanying list-article National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York." I think it could be condensed to become a more straightforward cross-reference note, such as "See National Register of Historic Places listings in Onondaga County, New York for listings in Onondaga County outside the city of Syracuse."
• Not all National Register-listed properties are properly referred to as "sites." Therefore, that word does not belong in the sentence that introduces the table.
• I don't think it makes sense for the "location" column to be sortable. I don't see any value in sorting a list on the basis of entries that start out with strings such as "210-216 West Water Street", "2000-2004 E. Genesee St." and "Roughly bounded by ..." (On the other hand, the "Neighborhood" column is a very nice feature and seems to be a good basis for sorting by geography.)
• These are not "landmarks" (OK, some of them surely are, but that is not the case for all, and anyway they are not designated as historic landmarks), so that word should not appear in the second column's heading.
• For accessibility purposes, (1) the images should have captions to be displayed in alt tags and (2) the color code listed in the legend should be supplemented by a symbol (or some other indicator that does not require the user to be able to perceive color).
• Since everything on this list is on the National Register, it's not at all obvious to me why not all of the list entries are color-coded as "NRHP-listed." It appears to me that everything in the table should have that color code (which leads a person to think that the color-coding is extraneous) and the "historic districts" footnote should simply say "Historic district," and not "NRHP-listed historic district." [Yes, I am aware of the history of the NRHP wikiproject's color coding and classification schemes. What I am saying is that in the context of this list article, these things look very peculiar.] --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)