Wikipedia:Peer review/Biscayne National Park/archive1

Biscayne National Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FA, having expanded it over the past two months. Thanks, Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Unfortunately I don't have time for a detailed review of the prose. From what I have read this looks in pretty good shape. Mostly I've concentrated on the kind of niggly things that are often picked on at FAC, and it's as well to get them out of the way here:

• Location map: at present this isn't particularly informative – a blob in the general area of southern Florida. Would it be better to use a map of Florida, where the location on the south-eastern coast could be more precisely indicated?

Could be: I was working from the precedent of the other eight US national parks that are FAs. It would probably need a consensus to recast the infoboxes from participants at WikiProject Protected areas. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although in general citation looks thorough and comprehensive, I noticed the odd uncited statement; these are particularly noticeable when they fall at the end of a paragraph. See third paragraph of "Proposed development" section, last sentence of "Shoreline and mangrove swamp" section, first paragraph of "Climate".

Resolved, checking for missing cites internal to paragraphs. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• In your citation formats, page ranges should be dashes not hyophens, per MOS.

Fixed. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also, you should use short-style citations for all references that are listed in your bibliography, e.g. refs 5, 6, 14, 35 etc. I think you are using the long citation for the first mention of a source, but that is not necessary when the info is given in the bibliography

Some of the cites are for "online books", as the Park Service calls them, with separate links by chapter whose pagination resets with each chapter. Since the bibliography just links to a title page, it's probably more useful to remove the bibliography link and keep the individual chapter references in the notes. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Retrieval date formats should be standardised. See, for example, refs 1 and 2 versus 3.

Resolved. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some citations look incmplete. Two examples: 104 and 117. 104 appears to be from the journal Flora of North America, Volume 4 page 150, date not given. No publisher or retrieval date is given for 117.

Fixed, though I'm having trouble formatting the Flora of North America ref. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Check thoroughly for minor format errors in the refs, for example in ref 87, "p.1" should be "p. 1"

Checked and fixed. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Instinct and experience tell me that this is not far from being a FA, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been away from the article for a little while and I see a few minor prose issues now: I'm prone to repetition and the occasional singular/plural goof. I'll get to work tidying, I appreciate the review. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO:

I've done some minor work to the page so my comments are not going to be as helpful as a neutral editor....

• Watch for overlinking...also avoid linking to obvious things.
• Concur with Brians assessments above, so not much more to add...hope to see this at FAC next week!--MONGO 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm going to go ahead and close this in a day or so if that's OK: the only unresolved issue is the map in the infobox, and precedent appears to go both ways, with recent FAs favoring the national map. Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)