Wikipedia:Peer review/List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania/archive1

List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a complete list of all thirteen municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. We (Dincher and Ruhrfisch) have worked on this list, following the model of the Featured List List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, including the picture gallery and clickable map. Each county is different, so we would like another set of eyes (or two) to look this over and help us get it ready for WP:FLC, as well as help make it clearer. Thanks in advance for all input, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:17, 14 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 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes have been fixed, remainder of the suggestions seem more applicable to articles that are not lists. Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could the clickable map be made smaller? It doesn't fit on the page on my browser. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - yes it can be made smaller (but it will take a little while as all the coordinates for the labels will then have to be adjusted too). Just as a note of explanation, the size follows the map in List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, which followed the same size clickable map in the FL List of Kentucky counties. I will shrink this map to 800 pixels wide (now 922). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now 800 pixels wide - is this good? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list looks good; mostly what I see are merger types of issues with Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. For example, the 'history' section should be in an article on the county, not in a listing of municipalities in said county (the article on the county could benefit by getting it's history section back, as it has started to look a little spotty),...

Unfortunately the county article has no history section and this history is new material for this list. Since this list is about the land and the history of the municipalities and their properties (formation, size, population) we tried to focus just on that in the history section (this also gives some context for the list). There is a lot more history that could be mentioned in the actual county article - we will try to add some soon. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the first two paragraphs of the mentioned history to the Sullivan County article. They are generally about the county and do not mention the formation of the municipalities.Dincher (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid phrases like "as the crow flies" -- all that's required here is to illustrate the distance in miles and/or km between the county and Philly and Pittsburgh. There's no need to be excessively flowery here.

"As the crow flies" has been removed. Because of the montainous terrain, it is impossible to drive a straight line between Sullivan County and either city, so this was an attempt to show it is the shortest direct distance (your mileage may vary ;-) ). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend putting the map of the county's location in PA on top of the local map of sullivan county; and put them directly over the other, with no paragraph text allowed to flow between them; make sure they're the same width.

Thanks, this is done. They were the same width (250 px) but I set them both at thumb size per the MOS. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move the collection of thumbnail images to immediately below the list table, not above it. It might help to put it into it's own section entitled 'gallery'?

Thanks, for the suggestion, I will try the move just to see what it looks like. I do not think I will like it as that would put the gallery, then the panorama, then the clickable map all together. The current placement of the image gallery follows the model of the other county FL (and the FL List of Pennsylvania state parks). There is no room in the list itself for images (the list is 100% wide). The gallery was a way to put some images in the list and the other FLs have galleries between the lead paragraphs and first text section and the list itself. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is the lead DYK item right now so I moved the gallery back to just above the list - I think having only text and maps until after the table is too much text without a photograph (or four). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The clickable map image is a bit large; it could probably be reduced to 1/2 or 2/3 its present size. It might be better to put it before the list table as well.

I will resize it in the 24 hours or less - the placement follows the two model Featured Lists (see above), so for now I think we would prefer to leave it where it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been resized to 800 pixels wide (87% of former size). Is this OK? If it gets much smaller some of the labels do not fit well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The map still looks okay. I think any smaller would be too small. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The panoramic image isn't doing much for me where it is; it might be better to put it in the Sullivan County, Pennsylvania article instead.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I favor keeping the panoramic picture because it shows what most of Sullivan County looks like. It is really pretty much a wilderness. This pic shows the rolling hills off into the distance pretty clearly. Dincher (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Loyalsock State Forest but not the county article. I like how it shows the dissected plateau - the heights of the "mountains" are all the same, as they are really the tops of a plain that has been eroded with such deep vallys as to look like mountains. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I want to thank APR, Epbr123 and Dr. Cash for their helpful comments Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]