Wikipedia:Peer review/Austin J. Tobin Plaza/archive1

Austin J. Tobin Plaza

I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed (I withdrew it per advice), and someone suggested that I take it to peer review. I'm hoping for this to become a featured article soon, but I think I need some help/guidance/advice before taking it there again.

Thanks, SirMemeGod  12:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I'll provide some comments, keeping in mind the featured article goal of this PR.

• The layout needs some attention; at the moment, it's all a bit confused, with section headers getting in the way of the prose. A smoother structure would be much more professional, and more likely to meet FA criterion 1a).
  • The "History" section is seven paragraphs long; there's no need for three separate subheadings.
  • What should go in the "Design" section vs the "Sculptures" section, and even the first paragraphs of the "History" section, is not entirely clear.
    • There is even overlap between the "Design" section and the "Surrounding buildings and structures" section.
  • You also have problems like the destruction of sculptures in the "Destruction" section before they are actually discussed in the "Sculptures" section.

  I would generally advise that you remove all the headings in a sandbox or draft, and treat the article as if it were a blank slate. Feel free to separate paragraphs from sections, or sentences from paragraph—the important thing is that the prose flows as smoothly as possible.

• The prose itself needs touching up too—it's occasionally rather verbose and clunky. See e.g. "Author Virginia Dajani also gave remarks on the plaza, stating that it was...", which could easily be simplified to "one author remarked that the plaza was..." (it's not clear to me why Ms. Dajani's opinion should be valued—she doesn't appear to have written any more than a walking tour guide). See also "The plaza was brought into design" which is a construction that I have never seen before in English.
• There are occasional omissions of details which probably should be included. What was the "heavy backlash" against the original plans? What was the "Bathtub" (WP:NOFORCELINK)? Was the mall located underneath the plaza before the renovations? Was the underground car park underneath the plaza and the mall?

The article suffers from a general lack of clarity—more care needs to be taken to simplify unnecessary constructions or structural divisions, and to explain parts that the author may regard as obvious but others may not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting to this sooner, I've had a lot going on. I'll get to it shortly. :) EF⁵ 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)