Jump to content

Talk:Reculver/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Senra (talk · contribs) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article. As this will be the first article I have reviewed against the GA criteria, I have recruited a mentor, Aircorn (talk · contribs) --Senra (Talk) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My review is based on this version of the article. In general, the article is well written and I feel it deserves serious consideration as a good article. I will be judging the article against the Good article criteria. However, I see some issues that need addressing first. Please do not be discouraged by the amount of detail below. Most are simple to fix. In any case, the holidays are close and I have no deadline --Senra (Talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General
  • [Criteria 1b]
*Sections: Consider including additional sections and arrange the existing sections according to "how to write about settlements". This is also demonstrated in the following good articles, which we encourage editors to read, listed in order of most recently promoted
  • The information is a little confused in places. For example toponymy in the geography section which should be in the history section and is Wildlife really geography? Perhaps it is. SSSI's are a notable sites sub-section within a landmarks section
Noted, e.g. I'll move toponymy to become the first sub-section under "History"( Done). Moving SSSIs etc. to a "Landmarks" section is no problem,( Done) as you also indicate that this is where much of the church history could go.( Done) I note that Ditton, Kent has a main section "Ditton Nature Reserve" - perhaps I could something similar here, merging subsections "Wildlife" and "Country park" into a new main section, "Reculver Country Park"?( Done) Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... merging subsections "Wildlife" and "Country park" into a new main section, "Reculver Country Park" is fine for GA though FA tend to hold you more firmly to your topic guideline thus putting these as [a] sub-section(s) within Landmarks as part of Notable sites of tourism (though with your own heading) --Senra (Talk) 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the FA tip - then, make that "merging subsections 'Wildlife' and 'Country park' into a new subsection 'Reculver Country Park', under a new main section 'Landmarks'"?( Done) Nortonius (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed going by my own one FA experience and my own interpretation of FA criteria 2b where I take appropriate structure, for settlement articles such as this one, to mean "complies with how to write about settlements" --Senra (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All struck --Senra (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • [Optional]
  • Block quotes should be in-line attributed as per {{Quotation|quoted material|Author|Title|Publication}}
Looking at quotations of Leland again, of course quotations should be attributed directly to him, whereas he did not publish - this was done by later editors. How about this: {{Quotation|quoted material|John Leland|"Itinerary", ''volume 6''}} (i.e. with "volume 6" in italics)? Or maybe scrub the "volume 6" bit.( Done - but see what you think?) Anyway I think I'll add Thomas Hearne's 1711 edition of this volume to the Bibliography, and re-jig existing inline citations for Leland to point there.( Done) Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I've missed that one - that's something I check carefully when adding stuff myself, optional but I'm keen to fix!( Done) Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
{{Infobox UK place}}
  • [Optional]

:* Is the surface area (|area_total_sq_mi= and |area_footnotes=) of the settlement known?

The 2001 census area is given here as about 7.2km2, but this area goes its own sweet way in relation to all other relevant areas that I know of, i.e. the ecclesiastical parish, the civil parish (which is actually Herne Bay CP) and the electoral ward (which conversely is called Reculver, but takes in much of Herne Bay!); so, I'm minded to leave that out...? Nortonius (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you cite office for National Statistics (ONS) for the 2001 census and therefore an area cited to the same source helps readers gauging the size of Reculver in relation to their own settlement and secondly, {{Infobox UK place}} will automatically add the population density if you include an area parameter. Any differences between historical area, political area or geographic area can be dealt with in the body of the article in the history, governance and geography sections respectively --Senra (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I'll get on it when I've had some shuteye...!( Done) Nortonius (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The grid reference (|os_grid_reference=TR224693) specifies a 100 m square. Is this reasonable for the settlement? If not, consider reducing the accuracy to 1 km (TR2269) or 10 km (TR27). See Ordnance Survey National Grid for the finer detail
I've reduced the grid ref to TR2269, per your suggestion. Nortonius (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a council web site (|website=) for the settlement?
Not that I've seen - web presence is covered by Canterbury City Council (as demonstrated frequently in the article), and web searches for "Herne Bay council" and "Herne Bay parish council" return nothing useful. Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Reculver ward councillors are mentioned in the article and linked via www.canterbury.gov.uk - directly regarding the present issue, I think perhaps best to use nothing then, rather than confusing people by sending them to a website for somewhere else? Reculver is only found at www.canterbury.gov.uk by searching, one way or another. Nortonius (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • [Criteria 1a, 1b]
  • Is Herne Bay the main county town? Consider additionally locating the settlement from the main town/city of the county and/or (especially for international readers) London (e.g. via Boxing the compass: "... 68 miles (109 km) east-southeast by road from London")
I've re-written the first two sentences of the lead to include this info, any good? Nortonius (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Indeed the first two sentences in this version are much better --Senra (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a small fort, probably at the time of their ..." is WP:ALLEGED and should be " ... a small fort, at the time of their ..." (providing it is attributed in the body somewhere)
I've deleted "probably", now reads "a small fort at the time of their" - I thought the comma could go too. Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • [Criteria mainly 1a]
  • Overall, history seems rather long though would be shorter if the church is moved as suggested below
I've now done this per below. Nortonius (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for WP:PEACOCK phrases such as "... and a well known Roman fort". Well known by whom? Better is "... a Roman fort". There may be other similar issues in the article
I've removed "well known" and I'm keeping an eye out for similar, though I note "2nd opinion" section below. Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as done --Senra (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only remaining candidate for "peacock" phrases is "uniquely detailed", in section "Prehistoric and Roman": I can't supply a direct quote for this, but e.g. two of the sources in the relevant inline citation both read "epigraphically, its importance lies in the fact that this is the first time the inscribed phrase aedes principiorum can be applied to and identified with the official shrine of the headquarters buildings, hitherto unmentioned in any inscription. It is also the first certain instance of the application of the name basilica to a military crosshall, although the resemblance between these buildings and a civil basilica has often been stressed."(my bold). So the plaque is "uniquely detailed", and my tired brain tells me that this really is a suitable and even ideal way of describing it...? Nortonius (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as done. I have probably put you through the mill on this one. As I said elsewhere we all find this hard because sources read this way --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Presumably the fort was built at Reculver ..."? Presumed? By whom? Better is "The fort was built at Reculver ..."
I've re-written that sentence and moved it to the preceding para, viz: "The fort's location at the north-eastern extremity of mainland Kent was strategic, lying as it did "at the main point of contact in the system [of [[Saxon Shore]] forts]".<ref>Cotterill, J. (1993), "Saxon Raiding and the Role of the Late Roman Coastal Forts of Britain", ''Britannia'' '''24''', p. 236.</ref>", any good? Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as done. --Senra (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is believed from ..."? Believed by whom? Better is simply "... from ..."
I've re-written the sentence thus: "Roman forts were normally accompanied by a civilian settlement, or "''[[vicus]]''", and "it is clear that significant Roman structures and features existed"<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|page=95}}.</ref> outside the north and west sides of the fort, mostly in areas now lost to the sea, and that the ''vicus'' at Reculver was extensive.<ref>{{harvnb|Philp|2005|pages=95–7}}.</ref>" I've also moved it to the preceding para, where I think it really belongs. Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... abandoned in the 360s". Is that what the source said? Even so, how about "... abandoned circa 360"
I've made "abandoned in the 360s" into a direct quote from the source, with an adjacent inline citation - personally I don't have a problem with "in the 360s"...? Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Domesday Book, in 1086 the Archbishop of Canterbury ..." is vague. Consider "In 1086 the Archbishop of Canterbury ..."
I've re-written that bit, any good? (I'll be commenting on comparative incomes where you raise them, below) Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed I am not a wordsmith like Malleus but shouldn't it be "The Domesday ..." not just "Domesday ..."? Anyway, struck as done --Senra (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My own, hoary experience indicates a preference for just "Domesday Book", though usage does vary, even in academic circles! Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reculver remained an unusually large and valuable parish ...". Unusually large by whose standards? For example, "Ely was the 'second richest monastery in England'" (Turner 2003, p. 13)
I've removed "unusually" - "large" is obvious I think, though you don't question it? Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do as in "Unusually large by whose standards?". I have the same difficulty in my articles. For example, I am currently re-reading Schama (2000) and he uses inexact language such as "large numbers of them ..." and "'almost certainly intended for ...". These are not encyclopaedic terms as per our MOS#words to watch. Incidentally, "Unusually large" is perfect if quoted from the source; it just cannot stand on its own, otherwise it could be challenged --Senra (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, sorry, of course you do! Blind again... Understood about Schama (2000) etc., it is a problem. But! I've re-written this with a direct quotation and re-arranged the paras, so the bit in question now reads "By the 13th century Reculver parish provided an ecclesiastical [[benefice]] of "exceptional wealth",<ref>{{harvnb|Graham|1944|page=1}}.</ref> which led to disputes between [[wikt:lay#Adjective|lay]] and Church interests.<ref>{{harvnb|Graham|1944|pages=1–12}}.</ref>". Better? Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as done --Senra (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The church was significantly enlarged over time ...". Better is "The church was enlarged over time ..." or "The church was 'significantly' enlarged over time ..." quoting significantly providing it is attributed
I've changed "significantly" to "considerably" per the source, which now has an inline citation at the sentence. Nortonius (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perhaps originally an open-air preaching cross, like the Ruthwell Cross, around which the monastery was later built.". Perhaps is vague and also this sentence is not clear. Does it mean that "... an open-air preaching cross like the Ruthwell Cross. The monastery was built around the Ruthwell Cross". Consider "originally an open-air preaching cross—similar to Ruthwell Cross—around which the monastery was later built"
How about this version: "In 1927 archaeologists discovered what was believed to be the base of the cross, which was dated to the 7th century, but earlier than the monastery.[50] The Reculver cross has been compared with the Ruthwell Cross – an open-air preaching cross in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland – and it has been suggested that the monastery at Reculver was built around its cross.[51]"? I've saved it, but I'll look at it again if you think I need to! Nortonius (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Words are not my strength :( I will give it a go. Consider "In 1927 archaeologists discovered what was believed to be the base of a 7th–century cross[50] which it has been suggested that the Reculver monastery was built around in 669.[51] This Reculver cross has been compared with the Ruthwell Cross—an open-air preaching cross in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland.[ref]". I messed up your references, sorry. In addition, I sometimes find reminding myself of the Five Ws when telling a story --Senra (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that's a very good suggestion! :) It was one of those awkward, too-much-information sentences... I suggest using it with minor tweaks thus: "In 1927 archaeologists discovered what was believed to be the base of a 7th–century cross,[50] and it has been suggested that Reculver monastery was built around ?it(or "this cross"?) in 669.[51] This Reculver cross has been compared with the Ruthwell Cross—an open-air preaching cross in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland.[ref]" Hm? Don't you worry about the refs, I'll take care of those suckers (sorry, just been watching The Sopranos with a mate!). Nortonius (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck (AGF on whether it is in the article yet as I'm tired too) --Senra (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've now changed the article almost exactly as above. Nortonius (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A map of about 1630 shows ..." better is "A circa 1630 map shows ..."
I've made "about 1630" into a direct quote from the source, with an adjacent inline citation Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably in the 1880s". Better is "circa 1880" although quoting "probably" is fine if that is what the source says
I've made "probably in the 1880s" into a direct quote from the source, as "probably … in 1883", with an adjacent inline citation Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Optional]
  • "(£42.35): this value can be compared with, for example, the £20 due to the archbishop from the manor of Maidstone, and the £50 due to him from the borough of Sandwich, both of which he also held" feels like too much detail. Consider demoting this to a footnote
I think it's useful to keep these comparative values in this bit (which I'm planning to move to a new subsection under "Landmarks"), because it prepares for the subsequent statement (which is sourced) that Reculver remained an "exceptionally valuable parish in the late 13th century"...? Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the comparitive values are part of the story. However, currently you have "Reculver remained a large and exceptionally valuable parish in the late 13th century, ..." which even though attributed is incorrect unless the MOS#words to watch "large and exceptionally valuable" are quoted as in "Reculver remained a "large and exceptionally valuable" parish in the late 13th century, ...". I am happy if you wish to seek a second opinion on this point --Senra (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No second opinion needed - I've already got rid of "large and exceptionally valuable", per my comment above at "Duh, sorry, of course you do! …" (18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)) Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, the 2nd opinion was to help me! I have doubt :) --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol! I know the feeling! Sorry - I wonder if a psychologist would say that I slipped into a "pupil" role there, with you as "teacher"?! :) p.s. Would you mind if I put "large" back, per Aircorn's "2nd opinion"? Reculver was a very large parish until the 13th century, a typical "minster parish", indicating an early foundation - which obviously it was. I haven't yet found a useful RS for that at Reculver, but one may be out there...! Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put "large" back by all means though (IMHO), in this context and if not quoted/attributed, it seems a vague and unqualified term. Consider very large as in larger than York? Victoria is a very large Australian state; it is the 2nd largest by population and the 7th largest by area. I am taking my lead from "Puffery": "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". I do get the fact that Reculver was larger in the past than it is now. The issue I have is trying to help you say so in an encyclopaedic way. Consider these (assume all are referenced):- Unencyclopaedic:Ely Cathedral has an exceedingly grand western tower. Encyclopaedic: :Ely Cathedral has an "exceedingly grand" western tower or more fully with a quotation:John Wesley wrote of his 22 November 1774 visit to Ely that "the cathedral, [is] one of the most beautiful I have seen. The western tower is exceedingly grand, and the nave of an amazing height".. I guess I really am being tough on this one, sorry --Senra (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine! I take your point, and I'll leave it alone now unless I get an RS, in which case I'll do as you indicate. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RS found for "large", so I've put it back under "Monastery and church", in a direct quotation with inline citation "The monastery "developed as the [centre] of a large estate, a manor and a parish",[22]". Nortonius (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the Church prose to a religion, landmarks or notable buildings section. It feels in the wrong place in history although leaving some church prose in history is reasonable
I thought this would take a while, and it is, so I'm working on it in a sandbox here, if you've the inclination to see what I'm doing with it: I've copied the whole article there, because it means re-working different sections. Obviously though I'll be copying it across to article space when done, so no pressure on you to look, just if you're interested! Nortonius (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking good. If you intend replacing the current contents of the article with your sandbox (when done obviously) then I recommend having a brief chat with the ever helpful Chzz (talk · contribs) using his talk page or IRC (he is on line the same time as us it seems). I have never replaced an article in the manner you are suggesting, except at article creation. I am unsure of the correct procedure to use that would preserve any relevant edit history --Senra (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - though, just to be clear, I copied the whole article over only to work on this specific issue, and I plan only to copy back changes & additions, which I was expecting to indicate in the edit summary as usual. I looked at this issue when I ripped my own writing on the Roman fort out of Reculver and threw it at Regulbium, interpreting Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed as covering it. So, I expected the same to pretty much apply here, too. Though, yes it'd be good to ask Chzz, and I've been meaning to talk to him anyway! Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I've asked Chzz, and his simple advice (here) is to copy from sandbox to article space with an edit summary something like this: "Updating section Foo and Baa; these changes were worked on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nortonius/Sandbox&oldid=467499385", so that's what I'll be doing...? Nortonius (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me. I saw the following earlier so might as well mention it now. Consider losing the qualifier from "Place-name authorities state that the earliest recorded form of the name ..." giving "The earliest recorded form of the name ..." because your reference group clearly attributes this to place-name authorities and therefore "Place-name authorities state that" is redundant --Senra (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done this: most church history is now under "Landmarks" > "Ruined church of St Mary", leaving only a summary under "History". This does mean some duplication, but I suppose that's unavoidable, and I've done my best to word duplicated info differently, besides it being more detailed under the new "Ruined..." section anyway. I've also taken up your tip re redundant place-name authorities! Nortonius (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tourist section within history is rather odd. Perhaps relegate to a culture section
I've dispersed most elements of the tourist section to "Economy" and "Country park", under "Landmarks", and removed others (I think?! It's a complex change...). Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as done --Senra (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Economy
  • [Criteria 4]
  • "Seasalter Shellfish (Whitstable) Ltd.," seems like WP:SPAM
I've removed the company's name from the text, but kept the inline citation for the official website. Nortonius (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck this as done (for GA) though I suspect the reference "'Seasalter Shellfish (Whitstable) Limited'. (2008). oysterhatchery.com. Retrieved 15 December 2011" is still SPAM, not RS and not encyclopaedic. The body prose is now great. Referencing a newspaper article, mentioning the Oyster company by name, would completely fix this issue. In fact, if you can source the fact that Oysters have been harvested (or farmed? Not sure of the term) for a long time, that would be encyclopaedic. See for example Reculver branch line and The Times 5 March 1866 p. 11 issue 25437 col B --Senra (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never did like Spam... How about this source as a ref? I've already used it in the article, re "marine vomit" (ugh!), and it's not directly related to the "shellfish company", but it happens to mention a "marine biologist Dr John Hayes, of Reculver-based Seasalter Shellfish"... Nortonius (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed newspaper is better than linking to the company --Senra (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Education

[Criteria 1a]

  • "Reculver Church of England Primary School is adjacent to the church at Hillborough and ..." seems odd. Why is Reculvers primary school in Hillborough and where is Hillborough? Perhaps "... nearby Hillsborough ..." at least but consider further explanation
I've now explained this in the first sentence of the "Education" section. Nortonius (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... pupils.[83] According to a subsequent "Section 8" report,[84] of November 2011, the school had made" is clunky. Consider "... pupils;[83] in a "Section 8" report[84] of November 2011, the school had made ..."
This bit now reads "…pupils.[130] A "Section 8" report[131] of November 2011 described progress at the school as "satisfactory … [Provisional] results in the 2011 national tests [showed] an upward swing, bringing attainment broadly in line with national averages."[130]" Any good? Nortonius (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transport
  • [Criteria 3]
  • Is Reculver reachable by sea? Now? In earlier times? The Danes invaded but did they land at Reculver?
"reachable by sea" - in general terms, not now, unless you run a dinghy ashore or get beached! Even historically, (current) Footnote no.25 says "a map dated 1685 describes what then remained of the inlet on the north-western side as 'a place anciently for a harber of ships, called now The Old Pen'.(with ref)" - so, that was gone even then. I could add a sentence based on that? Though, there might be more - the pub name "Hoy & Anchor" is suggestive of a local occupational trade, like sailing Thames barges in a later era. Hmmm! Sourcing more could be problematical though.
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the Danes" - I've seen no explicit mention of Danes at Reculver, only in Kent more widely. Obviously I may be missing something in "recent" historiography (there are one or two things out there that I haven't seen, and that might have something to say, I've made a resource request for one especially enticing thing). But essentially Reculver disappears from the record (I think!) while the Danes are around, and only pops up again after Alfred and successors have taken over and united England, i.e. after the Danes have been properly duffed up. Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading something somewhere about Danes but now can't find it; they did sack lots of other monastery's. Perhaps they missed this one. Anyway, was struck :) --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there a toll road? Is Reculver on any of the 18th century coach routes? If not, what is the nearest 18th–century coaching inn? See for example Cary, John (1817), Cary's New itinerary; or, An accurate delineation of the great roads ... throughout England and Wales; with many of the principal roads in Scotland etc, His Majesties Postmaster General
Are you happy that we've established most of this? i.e. No toll road; no direct coaches; nearest coaching inn probably at end of (local) route from Sturry, i.e. at Herne Bay, or failing that at Sturry itself (I imagine a coach and horses from Sturry would've needed a base of some sort at Herne Bay, at least for refreshment/resting of horses and driver...?). I think we're only waiting for more on that last bit, some time in the new year, per this? Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck. Struck so ignore this. I feel that Sturry's Coaching Inn attributed to Cary is notable and worth mentioning --Senra (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on the Sturry coaching inn's notability - but I'll hang on for now, hoping that my resource request re coach from there to Herne Bay is resolved soon, as promised. I suspect that'll save me some fancy writing followed by fancy re-writing! Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legends

[Optional though likely Criteria 2]

Moved to "Culture" & substantially altered, thoughts...? Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed though as stated elsewhere ([1] from "I'm no expert here"), this might need to be reviewed as part of a later FA --Senra (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • [Criteria 1a]
  • We are not convinced the first paragraph is about geography as history seems to be mixed in with it. Is it possible to move the history prose from here to history?
I've done as suggested. Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as done --Senra (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... In ancient times it lay on ..." is vague. Use Bronze Age or whatever
I've changed this to "In the [[British Iron Age|Iron Age]] it lay…". Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "clayey"? Fair enough. It is in the OED; in that entry their latest quotation using "clayey" is from an 1878 publication
I suspect "clayey" here is ongoing geology jargon, judging by the source in the related inline reference - this section was kindly added by Le Deluge, per this diff, and it seemed clear to me that Le Deluge knew what they were talking about in Geology, with all due respect to the OED! See also e.g. this - RS for "clayey" from 2009. My impression of the OED's "latest quotation" is that it can be from when a word became established, and is not designed to show whether it remains current. They have other ways of doing that. Jargon or not, though, I think the word remains "intelligible" as "like clay", and is not demanding. Nortonius (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck as compliant based on your above response. My point is that we need to be aware of using old unquoted words even if sourced. "Clayey" is 1024. The modern geological term appears to be "pelolithic" (OED). I have the same issue using many 18th and 19th century sources in my articles. By the way, I agree that for me at least, "clayey" has more meaning than "pelolithic" :) --Senra (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed! And thanks. Though, since you put it that way, I'd wikilink "clayey", if only I could pipe an article "Pelolithic", or a relevant Wiktionary entry! Nortonius (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images

[Criteria 6a]

Great tip! I've "updated" the "rationale" for Fred C. Palmer's death date at the above images, with what I suppose is some pretty clear synthesis, but I've no idea how it goes re that at WikiCommons... That aside, I'm pretty sure I've nailed his death in 1935 (it was kinda fun, too!), which would mean it's ok for copyright. Have a look anyway, see what you think? Maybe it won't float, but I tried...! Gah! I looked for a Frederick Palmer on WP, but couldn't find anything, despite what it said in the file descriptions - of course, now I've found it (Sod's Law), and it says he retired after also having a base in Swindon! I'll look into it further anyway... Nortonius (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - the WP page for Frederick C. Palmer says he died in 1939, so I've "updated" the file descriptions to reflect that, but it ain't over yet - see this, if you have the time/energy/inclination/stomach for it! Thing is, I might've been on the right track with my self-struck previous edit after all, we'll see, but is that enough to cover the "public domain" bit (1939+70=2009), or should this still be held? Thoughts on a postcard! ;) Nortonius (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is that I asked the question and you have made best endeavours to look into it and you have replaced believed :) --Senra (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! :) Nortonius (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other images in this version of the article are each confirmed to have a valid source and license
  • [Criteria 6b]
  • Consider putting the date and source of File:OldMapKent.jpg in the caption so the reader does not have to click through to find out
I've done as you suggest. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is OK and even desirable to wikilink within captions such as Margate
I've wikilinked as I think appropriate? Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an inline citation, to a photograph dated 1928 in a journal article - it's the only RS I've found for this! Any good? Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck --Senra (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the headstone image, really it was just a "pretty picture"! I think all others are directly relevant? Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck. I would still consider File:Reculver-plaque.jpg placed in the references section as unusual but as this is mentioned further down, this issue is struck --Senra (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Optional]
* We suggest that the placement of the images are staggered, right and left, as per the example GA articles listed at the beginning
This is weird: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location says "Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph." It then links to this version of "Timpani", where this rule is broken in the section "In the modern ensemble" – a contradiction, no? And I see that the current version of "Somerton" also appears to break this rule, in the section "Religious sites". Any thoughts? I'll happily break this rule if for some reason it's no longer deemed to apply, but...! Am I missing something?! In the meantime, there doesn't seem to be a way to stagger images at Reculver without breaking this rule. Hmm! Nortonius (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional anyway so struck from this review. This is not a GA criteria, hence optional. I am taking my lead from FA articles such as this small biased random selection Herne Bay, Kent (promoted version), Covent Garden (promoted version) and Larrys Creek (promoted version) --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References

(all relating to this version of the article)

* [Criteria 3] (but this may be a pit picky)

  • In general, the article is well referenced with high quality sources, though there are exceptions as noted below. In addition, consider PEVSNER'S (1951–1974) The buildings of England and also British History On-Line which, incidentally leads us to ask whether Hugh de Reculver or Reculverland are significant to the settlement.
I've added Pevsner and "Hugh-de-Reculver-related" queries to my most recent resource request (the latter about an intriguing ref to Reaney, The Place-Names of Essex!). And, thanks to you making me look again, I've just spotted that Thomas Becket's career included holding the prebend of Reculversland! Obviously I need to do something with that - though, it'll make the "history" section even longer! ;) Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be astounded if you managed to get an on-line version of PEVSNER The Buildings of England:Kent via WP:RX. My suggestion to consult these sources has been struck for this review as being too picky --Senra (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In anticipation that you may wish (outside this GA review of course) to pursue what PEVSNER may have said about Reculver, I have today ordered from the library a photocopy of the Reculver page or pages within Newman J (1983) North east and east Kent (Pevsner architectural guides: The buildings of England) --Senra (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fantastic, thank you! :) You're a star! I'll remove that from the relevant resource request. Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My library kindly read me the details over the phone from: Newman, John (1976). North East and East Kent (Pevsner Architectural Guides: Buildings of England). Penguin. p. 430. Retrieved 24 December 2011. as follows (rough transcription) ...
  • ST MARY'S ABBEY Saxon. Late 7th century. St Augustine. Almost intact in 1809. Mr C C Nailor's mother persuaded him to tear down the building for a poppet show. Little more than the foundation, two towers and west façade remain ... a little on the 7th–century history ...
  • ST MARY HILLBOROUGH 1876 by Georges Clark ...
  • ROMAN FORT a little on the fort ...
  • GATEWAY AT BROOKE FARM Elizabethan
Basically, not a lot on Reculver, sorry. What there is is definitely notable as it is mentioned in a PEVSNER architectural guide; every building listed above should be in the article, even if only a brief mention. I will not be able to get to the library today to pick up this book. The library is now closed until 3 January. I hope the above helps --Senra (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, you've got a kind librarian! :) No problem, though - yes, I ought to say more about the church at Hillborough, I saw something about the first building of about 1809 being rubbish, and replaced "60 years later": that's not exactly "1876", but I'd bet it's the same thing. Also, I'm onto the "gateway at Brooke Farm" - belonged to Sir Wm Cheney, later Lord Cheney under Henry IV, though I know very little else, thanks! While I'm here, I've discovered the prebend of Reculverland was in Essex and belonged to St Paul's, London, so maybe worth a mention but not much from what I've seen - the name comes from the bloke "Hugh de Reculver", possibly nil else known about him but I'll see. Knock off any time for Christmas by the way, I won't be surprised if I don't hear from you again for a bit! If so, have a great one, I think we are doing great things with this article, especially thanks to your experience and wider knowledge of "places-type" sources! :) Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reference issues noticed

  • [Criteria 6b]
  • Is there a very good reason for including an image in the footnote section?
This was another editor's neat (or, I thought so at the time!) way of squeezing the very relevant image into the article when otherwise it wouldn't fit - I expect to be moving images around soon, so that situation may change... Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now shunted this image up to follow the previous one, so strictly it's in the "Parramatta cathedral" section, though presently it "starts" at "See also". By the way, are we happy with the "Parramatta cathedral" section? I've tried but failed to think what else to do with it - does this compare with Ditton, Kent#Ditton Nature Reserve? It's hardly a Reculver "landmark"! But I think it's worthy of inclusion in the Reculver article... Nortonius (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed struck. I had never seen an image in the references section before; that does not mean examples do not exist. It just looked odd --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Criteria 2b]
I've pointed the above references re Bede & Domesday Book elsewhere, any good? I wikilinked them originally - it does look silly now, I think I was probably just trying to be helpful at the time, no problem! :) Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed It is fine to Wikilink Domesday Book within a citation such as {{citation}}; just not use Wikipedia as a source as you had appeared to do --Senra (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these web sites WP:RS? In the main they seem to rely on user-submitted information: oysterhatchery.com [71], reculver.kent.sch.uk [81], daynurseries.co.uk [85], kindergartenkids.co.uk [81] and hernebayhigh.kent.sch.uk [87]
Does [Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self published and questionable sources as sources on themselves|this]] not apply? I only included those websites (and the one for the shellfish company, now that I think of it) because I thought it did, but I'll happily delete them if I'm missing something and it doesn't!
Agreed I am happy to reconsider this for GA. On balance I may be holding you to a higher standard than is necessary for a GA review. The issue has been struck. In passing (now I really am being picky, sorry) Citing one (none notable?) company (in this case oysterhatchery.com) will inevitably lead to the local butcher, baker and candlestick-maker inserting their own company (anyone can edit, remember?) with the equivocal argument that "he did it so why can't I?"—especially when the article becomes an FA and also, how does hernebayhigh.kent.sch.uk qualify as a source for the partial statement "The nearest schools for older children are in Herne Bay ..."? --Senra (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point re "he did it so why can't I?", that hadn't occurred to me at the time! About the two kiddies' groups at Reculver school, I think that's reasonably ring-fenced by them being officially sanctioned, resident features at the school...? About nearest schools for older children at Herne Bay, something was bothering me about that when I stuck it in, but I was doing a bit of a "drive-by" - I'll see if I can't find some suitable LEA list online, I expect that'd be ok? Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Struck anyway :) --Senra (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - it's struck, but I've found no easy way to link to "local secondary schools" via the LEA's (Kent County Council) website - a reader has to do too much ad hoc searching, and there's no doi. On the other hand I did find from there that Herne Bay High School is in fact the only nearby LEA school for older children! Next nearest is in Canterbury, bloomin' miles away! So I've left the school's website linked in the relevant ref, where incidentally I noticed that I hadn't "separately" identified the web domain - I've done this now as "www.hernebayhigh.kent.sch.uk", which is obviously the officially sanctioned source, given the ".sch.uk" suffix - any good? Nortonius (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, yes --Senra (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Optional]
  • Do not punctuate references such as this one <ref name=Kerr1982>{{harvnb|Kerr|1982|page=194}}.</ref>
This is another hoary habit of mine - learned at the feet of historians who have WP pages of their own these days(!) - I think it helps speed reading, in that it indicates where to stop reading a ref, especially if it's a long one. Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional so struck from review --Senra (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following book citations have no page numbers (WP:CITEHOW): [8], [28], [29], [37], and [53] etc. We stopped looking after reference [53] so there may be more
I'm still to look properly at this one, but note that I can supply page numbers in many (most?) cases.( Done) In some cases though (especially Gough 2001) there are no page numbers to give. Nortonius (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional so struck from this review --Senra (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional so struck from review --Senra (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
  • [Optional]
  • The bibliography should be ordered alphabetically by |last=. See WP:CITE (under parenthetical referencing)
Erm... I think it is already? :) By all means show me if I'm being blind! Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed my bad. In the version I reviewed Gough (1992) spilled over two lines showing the publisher Boydell at the start of the second line. I should learn to read. Sorry --Senra (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - my own eye/brain/hand co-ordination has been way off kilter today, producing all sorts of garbage - this ranks as totally insignificant by comparison! :) Nortonius (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove periods (e.g. |last=Witney |first=K.P.) as the {{citation}} template being used puts these in or not depending on parameters set
Another good tip - ok hopefully I'll get around to it soon. Nortonius (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't been able to spot how to do this, so I've left it for now... Help...? Nortonius (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Optional so struck from this review. The FA criteria expects consistency and any consistent style can be used. If you prefer the K.P. form then, for FA, providing ALL first names use this same form throughout it is not an issue --Senra (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, andhere for what they are not)

A very nice article. This is the current status which is expected to change after above detailed issues have been addressed--Senra (Talk) 18:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Structure, WP:LEAD, WP:VAGUE, minor WP:MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Some WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW queries
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I have marked focus down until excessive religion in history is moved as per above detailed comments
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Two images to check; query non staggered location; captions need a little attention
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I do not watch reviews, so please drop me a short note on my talk page to gain my attention--Senra (Talk) 18:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no obvious place to comment on this in the review, so I'm putting this here and you're welcome to move it around, indent it etc. as you like: I believe that the article now meets "Criterion 2.a" (viz "Chzz's point (A)"). If you agree, then I think we may be done? Though, I note that you're waiting for feedback, which is fine obviously, I'm sure I'd want to do the same! :) Nortonius (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is now a clear good article. Nortornius has done a superb job. I believed it was reasonable to ask my mentor, Aircorn (talk · contribs), to confirm good article status though it may not be reasonable to ask the nominator to wait. In the spirit of WP:BOLD I therefore grant this article good article status. Well done Nortorius --Senra (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thank you, kind words indeed! But, well done to you too, Senra! A first time for both of us, which resulted in an excellent collaborative effort, IMHO - thank you very much for your own hard work, incisive comments and suggestions of all sorts! It's getting a bit late in the evening for me to do much more than tinker today, so I'll enjoy a glass of something nice, and ponder how to fit in all that other stuff...! Speak later. :) Nortonius (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Some comments about referencing

[edit]

Just passing through...

Referencing does need improving, definitely. There's a few issues with them;

  • (A) There's various bits and pieces that are hanging there, apparently unreferenced. Mostly, at the end of paragraphs - hence they can't be covered by another ref. Such as, Reculver#Bouncing_bombs ends with Others are on display in Dover Castle and in the Spitfire & Hurricane Memorial Museum at the former RAF Manston, on the Isle of Thanet., or Reculver#Parramatta_cathedral ending with A stone from Reculver was presented to St John's Cathedral by the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England – now English Heritage – in 1990.
  • (B) Whilst it isn't essential to add references for every sentence, it is a good idea, because text can get split via later additions. For example, if someone writes Chzz is English. Chzz likes tea.[123] and later, someone adds another fact: Chzz is English. Chzz is 73 years old. Chzz likes tea.[123] - it is unclear whether that new fact is covered within the same reference. It might be, but it's hard to tell. So, for example, in this paragraph, I'll indicate where I'd rather see refs;

During the Second World War, the Reculver coastline was one location used to test Barnes Wallis's "bouncing bomb" prototypes.REF Different, inert versions of the bomb were tested at Reculver, leading to the development of the operational version known as "Upkeep".[77] It was this bomb which was used by the RAF's 617 Squadron in Operation Chastise, otherwise known as the "Dambuster raids", in which dams in the Ruhr district of Germany were attacked on the night of 16–17 May 1943 by formations of Lancaster bombers.REF The operation was led by Wing Commander Guy Gibson, for which he was awarded the Victoria Cross.REF On 17 May 2003, a Lancaster bomber overflew the Reculver testing site to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the exploit.[78]

  • (C) Also, there is confusion caused by this footnoting style, because some parts only have a footnote, and have no reference; the footnote has a reference (as it should), but it isn't clear whether that is a reference only covering the claims in the footnote, or for the claims within the text. For example,

A story which has been told many times, incorporating varying details, but following essentially the same course, concerns the origin of a byname for the Reculver towers, as the "Twin Sisters".[nb 32]

---

Footnote

^ This byname is also found as "The Sisters" and the "Two Sisters", but the towers are also sometimes known as simply "The Reculvers".[105]

Now, in that case, I'm sure the footnote covers the fact that the byname is used. However, does it cover the fact in the text - e.g. that the tale "has been told many times"?

Thus it is my opinion that everything in the body-text that happens to have a footnote should also have a reference. That's what I've seen elsewhere; for example, see the recently featured article School for Creative and Performing Arts#Background,

...most robust magnet programs in the country.[10]a[›]

...first public school that combined all of the arts in a single program.[12]b[›]

 Chzz  ►  17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent points though before we give this editor apoplexy, can I check something first please. I did carefully check references against the "good article criteria" (not FA standard) and critically in this context "what the good article criteria are not". In particular [Criteria 2a, 2b & 2c] says, in part, "This standard is higher than the absolute minimum standard set by policy, but noticeably lower than many editors' personal preferences" and also "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" which I thought this article adhered to. I did notice, as you did, that some references within the article are in the middle of sentences but in my opinion, I felt this was acceptable for GA. I do, of course, accept that I may have been wrong --Senra (Talk) 00:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment
I know this is my first GA as a reviewer but I did read up carefully. In particular, I read the following :
Mistakes to avoid
  • Imposing personal preference on reference section headings.
  • Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.)
  • Not checking at least a substantial proportion of sources to make sure that they actually support the statements they're purported to support. (Sources should not be "accepted in good faith": for example, nominators may themselves have left prior material unchecked by assuming good faith.)
  • Requiring page numbers where these are not essential.
  • Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF
  • Requiring the use (or non-use) of citation templates.
  • Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)
... and I had, for example, required page-numbers but on reading the above I moved the page number requirement to [Optional]. @Chzz, I feel, may be straying into "Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, ..." but of course, I may be wrong.
--Senra (Talk) 00:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I downgraded [Criteria 2a] to fail on the basis of the comments by Chzz above. This now requires the article to be improved to meet [Criteria 2a] or Chzz reduces the, in my opinion, stricter interpretation --Senra (Talk) 00:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Senra, yes, sorry; I should have made my comments clearer. I was not necessarily saying that any of my comments were required for GA; they were general comments/suggestions for improving the article. I don't tend to separate the two, because I see the primary objective of the GA-review process itself as a way of improving the article and, wherever possible, getting it headed towards FA.
There were three bullet-points in my comments above, which I've just labelled as (A) (B) and (C) for convenience of discussion here;
I'd say (A) was a requirement, (B) certainly is not and is indeed "asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria" - mea culpa, but I did say it wasn't essential.
(C) is more debatable; as I said, my opinion is that something that has no actual inline reference but only has a reference on the end of a foontote (such as, in the example, [nb 32]) is not appropriately referenced. But I do accept that others might consider it acceptable.
I agree with some aspects of the essay "What the Good article criteria are not" but, I'd like to imagine it means, "do not fail an article for things outside the GA criteria" - quite right but there is nothing wrong in suggestions that go beyond the criteria, as long as a) it doesn't piss off the author, and b) they're not used in deciding GA pass/fail.
So: What I should have made clear was, that these were passing comments for possible improvement to the article; because I posted them on the GA1 page, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was judging it against GA-criteria; that wasn't my intent.
Anyway, the article is improving - that's the main thing :-) Keep up the good stuff.  Chzz  ►  07:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That makes it much clearer. I am sorry too if I came across rather more aggressive than I intended. This particular GA1 review is a learning experience for me as well as for the primary editor. I was concerned that your comments were indicating I had badly misinterpreted the GA criteria. I see now that, whilst I have indeed not judged the article correctly against [Criteria 2a] (your A label), the article is closer to meeting the GA criteria than your post initially implied. I do agree that we should aim as high as possible and on that basis, your points B and C are fair and reasonable. I suspect that between us, we have now given the primary editor some clear guidelines to help improve the article within the seven-day (notional in this case) deadline --Senra (Talk) 11:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you have! About putting inline citations before the end of the sentence (Chzz's point (A), I believe), funnily enough this is a habit which I developed in response to the exact reverse of what Chzz is concerned about (if I understand Chzz correctly), where stuff was added within a sentence, but wasn't supported by the ref at the end! When I've done this, I've placed the ref to cover that part of the sentence which is in most need, with the info "left hanging" at the end also covered, ideally at least, in the expectation that future editing will ultimately be appropriate ("no deadline" etc.). That's not to say that I can't see the concern! No, that's valid - it's just that you're asking me to change existing style within the article, QED. Obviously, though, if your consensus is that it doesn't meet criteria, I'll have to take it into consideration(!) - i.e., I won't be "pissed off", I'll just get on and change it! :) Nortonius (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again sorry for arriving late on the scene. All the comments are good, however I must respectfully disagree with Chzz about referencing. This is not the place to get into too much detail about best practices, but the cite every sentence has been discussed elsewhere at length and the consensus was that it is not necessary and many were actually against doing so. I feel the others have probably been mentioned there too.
In a good article on a town we only ask that citations are provided for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". There is a little but of leeway with likely to be challenged, but in theory everything else does not need a reference to pass as a good article. I personally like to see at least one citation per paragraph and while I would not fail an article for citing every sentence my personal preference for a paragraph that has one source would be to cite any sentence that falls under the above criteria (eg a direct quote) plus a single reference somewhere within the paragraph to indicate where the information came from. Usually the best place is at the end of the paragraph, but there are occasions when it fits better somewhere else. The bottom line for reviewers is that the information presented is relatively easy to match up to the source, and in the example given under (B), as long as the uncited sentence information is referenced by source 77 or 78, it would not be difficult for a reviewer to check.
In regards to footnotes I would follow the same general rule of thumb, how easy is it to figure out where the information came from. Since this is not part of the criteria and it is debateable whether it is even best practise I would be reluctant to insist on Chzz's suggested changes as part of gaining good article status. Of couse if there is an instance where it is reasonably difficult to match the information up to the source then it should be fixed in that instance. AIRcorn (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, can someone respond to my comment just above (15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC))? I'm unclear if my comment has changed anything, and where exactly I should be looking in the review, either way! Sorry if I'm being dim...! :) Nortonius (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? My own issue is that I have already changed my mind once and Chzz makes fair points. Therefore Chzz's point A remains. However, if that issue is all that is left at the end of the review, the article will not fail --Senra (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, those links clear the fog a bit, thanks; but I still don't see any explicit mention in the body of the review about "criteria 2a", and how it "fails"? Really sorry, don't mean to be difficult etc., it's just that I can't see what I need to do, though maybe I'm just being blind again! :( Btw, I don't mind a bit if that means adding something to the body of the review, if that's "allowed"...? Nortonius (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is unclear. Basically, Chzz's point A still stands—"There's various bits and pieces that are hanging there, apparently unreferenced. Mostly, at the end of paragraphs - hence they can't be covered by another ref".
  • In detail: unlike a FAC, a GA review is usually carried out by one editor. This is not written in stone and indeed, anyone can comment or add-to the review as Chzz did. Following "Some comments about referencing" by Chzz [3] and [4], I answered seeking clarification [5], [6] and (especially) my fail of criteria 2a. Chzz then clarified [7] after which I emphasised that Chzz's point A was valid (i.e. [Criteria 2a]) but Chzz's points B and C, whilst valid, held you to a higher standard than GA demands and thus could safely be ignored. Aircorn then came along and (essentially) disagreed with all of Chzz's points [8] and [9] but backed me up [10] and [11] so Chzz's point A still stands. The review itself (the text above Result) has not been re-factored, which might be your confusion. However, the Result section was changed as a failure of [Criteria 2a] thus requiring you to adjust the article to meet Chzz's comments (A only, not B & C). However, my mentor, Aircorn made a strong case (especially linking to this: discussed elsewhere at length) and I have thus promised that I will not fail the article for GA if Chzz's point A (which, by the way, to really add to your confusion, I agree could be an issue) is the only remaining problem at the end of the review. Thus, should you wish to, just ignore Chzz's point A.
--Senra (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that helps a lot, and doesn't add to my confusion, don't worry and big thanks for explaining it so fully and carefully: main thing (for my presently tired & fuzzy brain!) is you've latched on to the source of my confusion precisely, which I described as "I still don't see any explicit mention in the body of the review about 'criteria 2a'"! :) I fully note your pointers re what I can ignore, though I expect that I'll try to comb through stuff "left hanging", e'en so. Nortonius (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for causing any extra confusion. Senra has it correct, point A is not strictly required, but could make it easier to check sources in certain situations. AIRcorn (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was a bit blank-eyed for a spell there, but probably because I should have taken a good, long breather to clear my own head, as much as anything! :) Thanks from me for coming back on it. Nortonius (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

[edit]

I am seeking a 2nd opinion on words to watch

Second opinion: this reviewer is requesting another editor's input on the article. Senra (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorns opinion
I think "large" is fine and could just about live with "valuable", but "exceptionally" falls clearly into the words to watch category. If you want to keep it as written you could put a relevant quote in quotation marks or use "According to ...." (or a similar variation) within the sentence. The important thing is to make it obvious that these sorts of descriptions are not coming from us (i.e. Wikipedia). AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this review and agree that it is at good article standard. I would also like to commend Senra and Nortonius on a job well done. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reculver/GA1&oldid=1090576893"