Wikipedia:Peer review/Hoboken, New Jersey/archive1

Hoboken, New Jersey

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 would like it to be brought up to at least a Good Article standard. Any feedback welcome.

Thanks, Rhvanwinkle (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

I found this an interesting article. I've never heard of Hoboken and don't know too much about New Jersey, or even US history/geography in general! Hopefully that will be an advantage here, rather than a disadvantage. I don't think the article's quite up to GA standard, although hopefully with a bit of work it could soon be there. I'll detail some more specific concerns I have section by section, but first, some general thoughts I had when I first read the article:

I'm not sure if the structure works as well as it could. I'm more used to British settlements, and using [Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements this guide to structure]. I don't know if there's an equivalen for US articles, but looking at some current FAs might give you some idea (and seem to be more what I'm used to). For example: San Francisco, Erie, Pennsylvania, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Hillsboro, Oregon and others in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles. Note that they tend to start with the history section, which I think would make sense here.
The article is quite sparse on inline citations at the moment. I think quite a few more will need to be added and there are complete sections that are unreferenced. At a bare minimum, make sure that all quotes, statistics and extraordinary claims are referenced, but I'd also add refs for all statements that aren't common knowledge.
The prose needs tightening up a bit. In general I'd say it's good enough for GA (with a few exceptions I'll point out) but it would really benefit from being copyedited from an uninvolved editor.
Articles with maintenance templates are likely to run into trouble at GA. Make sure they're all addressed and removed, whether by doing what they say (eg. adding citations) or by determining that they're unnecessary

Ok, now I'll go through by section. I'll try and be thorough, but some issues crop up several times, so please try and check for other occurrences of things I mention! Infobox

I don't think you need "United States of America" in the infobox title, it looks a bit unwieldy. Compare to those other articles. They don't all even have the state name.

Lead

The lead seems a bit short and doesn't really adequately summarise the rest of the article. This is sometimes best left until you feel the rest of the article is ready, but WP:LEAD is part of the GA criteria.

Geography

As I mentioned, I don't think this should be the first section
The first sentence is a bit long and could perhaps be split into two. It's not grammatically 100% clear whether "between Weehawken and Union City" refers to Hoboken or to the West Village and Chelsea.
I'd probably combine the first two paragraphs. They're not on dramatically different subjects. Here, and elsewhere in the article, you have some short paragraphs that make the prose a little "choppy" and disjointed.
Is there a reference for these area statistics?
"...though Clinton Street likely honors 19th century politician DeWitt Clinton." - reference?
"Neighborhoods ... often have vague definitions ... subjective. " - reference? If it is covered by one of the ones at the end of the paragraph, I think it would benefit from moving it to the end of this sentence.
Although this section is probably broad enough for GA, perhaps it could be expanded a little. Look around at similar sections in other articles. Climate, for example, could be mentioned.

Demographics

In this 1st sentence perhaps link to the 2000 US census rather than to census
Is there any reason this 1st-sentence reference is in the middle of the sentence, not at the end? (Also, I'll check sources later, but clicking on this link doesn't tell me anything about Hoboken census figures. This sentence mentions statistics from at least two sources & needs relevant refs)
"The racial makeup of the city ... 7.63% from other races..." - perhaps link "racial makeup" to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census rather than "other races"
"Furthermore 20.18% of those residents also consider themselves to be Hispanic or Latino." - who does those residents refer to? The total population of the city? The "other races"?
Do all the statistics come from one cited source? (I'm asking because when I've worked on UK census figures, stats for one place tend to be spread over several pages) A reference for each paragraph would be helpful.

Name

This might be able to be incorporated into the history section.
"pronounced by some as HO-bo-ken" - this needs a source. Also, if that's how some pronounce it, how do others pronounce it?
First two paragraphs can be combined
"It is believed that the Lenape ..." - believed by whom? (see WP:WEASEL)
Delaware Indian doesn't need to be linked as it redirects to Lenape, which is linked to three words earlier.
"...settlers ... who may have bastardized the Lenape phrase, though there is no known written documentation to confirm it." - reference?
"It also cannot be confirmed that the American Hoboken is named after ... It is not known what the area was called..." - presumably statements like these are as a result of some kind of research, or someone reliable somewhere has written down that these facts are unknown/cannot be confirmed etc?
Last paragraph needs a reference

History (Early and colonial)

This is one big paragraph that might be a bit more digestible split into two
There is a weird wikilink to Michael Pauw
This section is completely reliant on one source, are there any other reliable soures covering the early history?
New Netherland or New Netherlands? Be consistent
"...brewery, North America’s first." - an extraordinary claim, needs a citation
The sentence ending "...may have discouraged more settlement" could really use a citation
1674-75 needs an en dash rather than a hyphen (see WP:DASH)

History (19th century)

"...developed the waterfront as a resort for Manhattanites, a lucrative source of income..." - slightly unclear. Was the waterfront the lucrative source of income, or the Manhattanites?
More refs needed for this section
"...he world's first steam-powered ferry..." - extraordinary claim, needs a citation
The sentence about Sybil's Cave could be slightly clearer. I'm not really sure what it is.
"(In the late 1880s, when the water was found to be contaminated, it was shut and in the 1930s, filled with concrete.)" - I'm not sure why this needs to be in brackets
"Stevens founded the Hoboken Land and Improvement Company, which during the mid- and late-19th century was managed by his heirs and laid out a regular system of streets..." - this doesn't quite work. It's unclear what "and laid out" refers to, Stevens or the company.
"The advantages of Hoboken as a shipping port and industrial center became apparent." - how so? This is a bit vague.
Who is Edwin A. Stevens in relation to John Stevens?
This may be my ignorance, but I'm not sure what a "great shipping line" is. Do we have a relevant article?
There's no need to link "German" or "immigrants", or at least if you really want to, link to a more directly relevant article

History (Birthplace of baseball)

Any reason why the first sentence's citation is in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end?
Should "between Knickerbocker Club" be "between the Knickerbockers Club"?
The first two paragraphs can be combined
the Knickerbockers Club is linked twice in quick succession (see WP:OVERLINK)
The end of the second paragraph needs a reference (as does most of this section)
There is some underlinking in this section. Relevant links can be added to: Henry Chadwick, Alexander Cartwright, St George's Cricket Club, Harry Wright, George Wright, Cincinnati Red Stockings
"America" is used a few times instead if the US. It's ok in quotes, but "America" shouldn't normally be used in this context outside quotes
The beginnings of baseball could be a bit clearer, as I get the impression from this that the game just kind of sprang up in the New York/New Jersey area, but after reading the baseball article, it was brought over to North America by immigrants and had been played before 1846, just not officially recorded.
"Henry Chadwick believed that baseball and not cricket should become America's pastime after the game drawing the conclusion..." - I don't really understand this
It might be worth adding a sentence about when Elysian Fields closed.

History (World War I)

"When the USA decided to enter World War I ..." - this sounds a little odd. A country can't make decisions.
link World War I?
You should consistently use either the US or the U.S., not the USA. (see MOS)
"...many Germans were forcibly moved to Ellis Island" - given the fact you're discussing the war, when you say Germans what do you mean exactly? German Americans? German immigrants?
"...forcibly moved to Ellis Island or left the city altogether." - presumably Ellis Island is/was not part of the city of Hoboken, so this sentence doesn't quite make sense, as going to Ellis Island would be leaving the city altogether. Perhaps forcibly moved to Ellis Island or left the city of their own accord. or something
no need to link heaven, hell or Christmas
more refs for this section!
The Great Depression can be linked
Why is the word tenements in quotes?

History (Post World War II)

"The war provided a shot in the arm..." - which war? It might sound silly, but you've just finished talking about World War I, and you can't rely on the subheading to introduce the topic.
Todds Shipyards is linked twice in quick succession
GI can be linked for your non-US readers
"Though some returning service men took advantage of GI housing bills, many with strong ethnic and familial ties chose to stay in town." - I don't understand this sentence. What were GI housing bills? What did they have to do with staying in town or leaving?
fifties → 1950s, sixties → 1960s
"...the throes of inexorable decline as industries sought (what had been) greener pastures" - What does the "what had been" mean? it seems to be referring to something not explained here at all. Where these other places no longer "greener pastures"? "Greener pastures" may be a little too colloquial, can you think of a more formal way of saying it?
I'm no longer going to mention it every section, but, references!
plane → airplane
"so-called slums" - so-called by whom?
"wasn't much work " → "was not much work " (avoid contractions)
"Stevens stayed a premiere technology school..." → "Stevens stayed a premiere technology schoo stayed a premiere technology school" (also, according to whom?)
"Maxwell House kept chugging away" - this is too informal
"Italian-Americans and other came back to the "old neighborhood" ..." - and others?
"Some streets were "iffy"..." - way too informal, and who has said this anyway?
"...most were not pulled in at night." - I don't know if this is a cultural thing, but I have no idea what this means

History (waterfront)

No need to say that the film "consistently listed among the five best American films ever" - this is irrelevant to this article. You could mention year & director for context. Maybe Elia Kazan's 1954 film On the Waterfront was shot in Hoboken. the rest of the sentence is not very neutral, or formal enough: "dramatically highlighting", "rough and tumble" - it sounds like it came from the DVD case.
In general this section is not quite WP:NPOV and even verges on promotional, as if telling perspective buyers what the area has to offer. Eg. "smell of coffee wafting over the town", "provide contiguous unhindered access to the water's edge", "the spectacular backdrop of the New York skyline."
"engaging in sometimes nasty, sometimes absurd politics and court cases" - wow. Really needs attribution and reference.
The panorama would look better centred and not surrounded by text, as the text is pushed into a tiny space, making it a bit more difficult to read.

Before and after the turn of the millennium

Not sure about this subheading; maybe "recent history"?
That first sentence is really long and kind of lost me half-way through. Can it be split?
"a wave of fires, some of which were arson" - "caused by arson" perhaps?
You have a strange mix of informal language, word in quotes, and unsupported attributions: "upwardly-mobile commuters (known as yuppies), and "bohemian types"", "became a "hip" place to live", "so-called "newcomers" displaced some of the "old-timers" " Who is using these words? What sources are these descriptions from? Why are words in quotes if they're not quoted?
"...and quick, train hop away" - this is a bit informal, and you're missing an article
What's a "transplanted American"?
"NY/NJ region" - is this an official name? If not, please spell it out. Many non-Americans are not familiar with your state abbreviations.
"Hoboken felt the impact of the destruction of the World Trade Center intensely..." - does a city have feelings? (I'm sure there's a better link for the destruction of the WTC)
Wouldn't hurt to add the year of the WTC centre destruction for context.

Government

No need for those external links for the city councillors. WP isn't a directory. If they don't have articles, just leave them unlinked.
Do we need two references for that list? Isn't there one that covers them all?

Fire Department

There are words here which seem to be common nouns but have capital letters. Eg. fire station, engine, ladder - please check these.
Hazmat can be linked to Dangerous goods; not everyone will know what that means
"An interesting fact about the Hoboken Fire Department is..." - not very encyclopedic. (see also MOS:NOTED). Also, no apostrophe in that it's!
I'm not 100% sure you need the list of Fire Station Locations and Apparatus.

Transportation

"...currently undergoing extensive renovation...", "Currently, the City of Hoboken is planning..." - please give some indication of time here. This section could stay the same for 5 years.
I don't think you need to include transport fares here. "...it is a well known fact that NY Waterway will charge ~$8.50 to travel some 400 meters across the Hudson River." "well known fact"?
This section is mostly made up of lists that would work better as prose. Compare to FA standard city article to see how they've achieved it.

Education

For us non-Americans, what's a K-8 school?
These paragraphs are a bit too short and could be combined to make it less choppy.
New Jersey Monthly can be linked
The list of private schools should be prose
Try to write a summary about the university rather than just linking to it.

Commerce and innovation

This sounds slightly non-neutral
Is this basically an "economy" section? I think it could be expanded a bit. compare to those other articles.

Notable residents

No need to have this here. I'd move the link to the "see also" section

Local attractions

Try to summarize the landmarks rather than just linking to another article
The event section would be better as prose. They seem a bit random and many are linked to primary sources. it would be better to find a good source that details the notable events of the city. Otherwise, you're likely to get all sorts of people coming in and adding their event, with a link to their website.

Parks

Again, less list, more prose, more references

Media

"most of it daily papers " - missing letter?
Is the blog listed notable? Or has someone just randomly added it?
"This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references" - it's true! Try to turn this section into prose, and keep only the most notable appearances.

See also

at least several (I haven't checked them all) of these links appear in the article already, so shouldn't be included here.

That's pretty much all I have for now. I haven't looked at the sources yet, but I will come back and have another look. Let me know if you have any questions/comments. --Beloved Freak 15:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from Belovedfreak

Citation format Generally the citations look pretty good, someone's worked on them, and some look like they've been added later with minimal information. Some of the following is just good practise rather than strictly required by WP:WIAGA, but it's important to make sure each one has enough information to meet WP:V

Link sources if they can be (eg. newspapers like The Union City Reporter)
Make dates consistent, either yyyy-mm-dd or Month Day, Year" It's your choice but I personally recommend the latter since the yyyy-mm-dd format is not familiar to everyone outside north America. Many don't know which number refers to the monthe, which to the day. (see WP:DATESNO for more info; not a GA requirement)
Include all of these where you possibly can: title, author, page numbers, work, date of publication, date of retrieval (for online-only sources), isbns (for books). Not all of these are strictly required by GA, but the article must meet WP:V. For example, if the information comes from a book, it really needs to include page numbers to allow readers to find it. Bare URLs and refs consisting of just a title will not necessarily fail GA, but they should eventually be dealt with.
The IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source. Although it's generally considered ok for cast lists, or to demonstrate that a film exists, some reviewers don't like to see it at all and I'm pretty sure you could find a better source for the fact that On the Waterfront is set in Hoboken.

Sources

Make sure that each source used meets WP:RS. If any look dubious, don't use them. If you're not sure, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. The main thing is that you know about the sources and can explain how/why they're reliable if they get questioned. You'll need to check each one (especially if not added by you) before you nominate at GA. Just looking at the first few:
Ref #4 (American FactFinder) doesn't mention Hoboken or its FIPS code. If it's not possible to link to the actual page with the data, and the database must be searched each time, a note to that effect should be in the citation. However, there are two citations for the same thing, and the other one is ok, so I don't think this one is necessary
Ref #6 ("US Board on Geographic Names") seems to be a generic "about" page, not about Hoboken
Ref #7 (Hoboken Museum). This may not get questioned at GA, but it may do. The "history" page doesn't cite its sources and its hard to know if the information was added by someone authoritative or some more lowly museum employee.
Ref #9 ("How Hoboken became a city," ) is broken
Ref #11 ( "Our Towns;In Hoboken, Dreams of Eclipsing..." - I don't know if I'm missing this but I can't see where that source says the Knickerbocker Club started playing at Elysian Fields in 1845.
Ref #12 (Doughboys of NYC) - I can't see anything at this website suggesting that it would meet WP:RS
Ref #15 (Port Authority if New Jersey) - this doesn't really back up that sentence. Its nothing hugely controversial, but it doesn't say anything about agreements being made in the 1990s
In general, the article (the parts that are well-sourced) seems to rely quite a bit on newspapers and possibly-reliable, but not exactly authoritative sources like the museum and fire department. What would be great would be to see some books consulted. I'm sure there must be some relevant to the city, particularly its history. If you live locally, try your local library. If not, I did a quick search on google books and immediately found a few possible sources.
Check for dead links using the link checker

Images

All look ok with regard to licensing although some may need more source information

External links

I think you've got a few too many links, remembering that Wikipedia is not a directory. Try to only include the most important ones, that really add something to the article if it was at a complete, FA level. I'd say you don't need unofficial guides, or for example, the website for the local newspaper (especially as it has its own article here)

Anyway, that's all I can think of for now! Don't be put off by the big long list. I see you've already started work on it. It shouldn't take too much to see this passing GA. Good luck! --Beloved Freak 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]