Wikipedia:Peer review/Hobart Area Transportation Study/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as I've created this article with great uncertainty. I believe it has potential to be a good article, describing the Transport network Hobart could of had. However the only 2 articles I could find to inspire my creation of this article was the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (both of which appear different in layout).
I have been studying the complete Transport plan at the local library, but am unsure what to include as a lot of the information is raw numbers and data. I'm also wondering if someone can tell me how realistic it would be for me to upload a picture of the front cover of the plan under fair use????
Basically, have I got enough info? is the info provided relevant, does the article make sense and do I need to wikify the article further? Any constructive comments would be much appreciated.
I also have info on later studies, but am unsure whether to include them in this article or create seperate articles. My instinct tells me to create new articles to prevent this article becoming fragmented and too big, however all later plans are evolved from this one and there would not be as much info to place in these articles.
Rating the article a stub, start, c or b class would also be much appreciated, as this has yet to occur :)
Cheers, Wiki ian 07:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by AJona1992
- Lead
- 01. 1965 doesn't need to be wikiliked per WP:MOSLINK
- 02. "Target" shouldn't be capitalize per WP:MOSCAPS
- History
- 01. This section is rather small, anyway of finding WP:RS to help expand it?
- 02. "In 1963, the Department of Public Works, the Transport Commission and Hobart City Council initiated the first urban transportation study conducted in Australia." why?
- 03. "during the years 1963 and 1964" reads sloppy, maybe saying it like this... "from 1963 to 1964" or something like that.
- 04. "and the findings and suggestions were published in 1965." publication?
- Application
- 01. "1985 - 20 years from the time of publication" WP:Endash seems appropriate for this.
- Final thoughts
The sections on the article are wikilinked but would be better off by using {{main}} or {{see also}} below the headings. Also, there are only six sources that are used in the article. Have you searched google.news or google.books for WP:RS to possibly expand the article to its potential? Also the images used needs a better caption then just stating which highway is which. I'm not a WP:PR reviewer but they needed more users to help out the backlog and since they have tolerated mines, I wanted to help out. I'll have an experienced reviewer review this article to point out other layout and WP:MOS issues the article may have. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: Here are a few more suggestions.
- The first sentence should probably include something like "Hobart, capital of the Australian state of Tasmania" for readers who might not know anything about Hobart or where it is.
- Extremely short sections make an article look choppy and cause layout problems with illustrations. The Kingston Bypass image overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button because no section is big enough to accommodate it nicely. WP:MOS#IMAGES has advice about layout. You can either expand or merge short sections to overcome this problem.
- Avoid overlinking per WP:OVERLINK. My rule of thumb is to link terms no more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. Brooker Highway, for example, is linked once in the lead and six more times below that. That's way too many.
- Avoid double bolding per WP:MOSBOLD. Unlink the double-bolded heads. Instead, link those terms on first use in the lead or in the main text.
- Parts of the article lack inline citations to reliable sources. For example, the Davey/Macquarie Couplet section is unsourced. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every unusual claim. If a paragraph has an inline citation in its middle somewhere, the claims that appear after the citation may need their own source(s).
- Check the capitalization. Words like "target", "study" and "freeway" do not normally take caps unless they appear as part of a formal name or title.
- Avoid repeating the main words of the article title in the section heads. "Publication of the Study" would be better as "Publication".
- Newspaper names like The Mercury take italics.
- Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 1 has left out the author's name, Charles Waterhouse, and the date of publication. Web citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access if all of those are known or can be found.
- Citations to long works such as the Hobart Transport Plan should include specific page numbers for each citation. In other words, on which page should a reader look to find support for a claim? If the plan is short, less than 10 pages or so, the page numbers are probably not necessary.
- I doubt that you can claim fair use for a copyrighted map of the freeway system in Hobart because it would be possible to make a free-use map, perhaps by adding data from copyrighted sources to a public-domain base map. Open Street Map looks like a good possibility. See Hobart.
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)