Talk:Belfast/GA4

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
It's been a few years since this article was last reviewed, and glancing at it I can see cite needed tags - some dating back to August 2008, and there's been some image clustering which is making the page quite noisy, so I'm going to give it a quick review to see what needs to be done to ensure it continues to meet current GA criteria.SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• There's an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• No edit wars, though there is a fair amount of reverting of edits by IP accounts. It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get a lot of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

On average there seem to be 3 edits reverted every month and only about half of them seem to be outright vandalism. There are enough active editors monitoring the page, so I would say the article should remain unprotected. Valenciano (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Prose is clear and readable, and effectively conveys the information in a professional manner. I haven't checked for copyvio. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Query

• Article is rich with media - colourful statistics boxes which are very noisy, but add little information, and images which cluster and spread across section, and squeeze text. There are issues here regarding WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:EMBED. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• Has several citation needed tags, some dating back to August 2008 - in addition, there are other areas of the article, not tagged, which would benefit from appropriate sourcing. The Famous citizens sections is entirely unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've moved some cites which were already in the article to cover sections in the lead, however when doing that I found that one of the cites in the lead goes to a wordpress blog, definitely not a reliable source. I'll have a further look during the holidays later this week, to see if I can dig out sources. Valenciano (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just been doing some tidying up, and I'm seeing a number of challengeable unsourced statements. I haven't begun to look at the sources which have been used. I think there's a fair bit of work to do here, and I'll see if anyone at the related WikiProjects is interested in helping out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. In this article there is a lot of detailed statistics in the opening paragraphs which may not be the most significant facts about the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• The article goes into excessive and/or disproportionate detail in places. There is more about the climate and the coat of arms than there is about The Troubles. And there is more about the transport than there is about the entire history. There should be some editorial discussion about an appropriate balance and spread of information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• I have not done a check on image copyright information as the amount and selection of images may change. When the image use is established, I'll do a check. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it seems worse than you indicate. Running Checklinks throws up about 15% dead links in addition to lack of citations. I fixed the easy ones but even if they are all fixed or replaced there is a lot more work to do. Regarding the images, most appear ok, though not all are appropriate, except for the non-free which may be able to be replaced with free ones. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is likely to be delisted. I will, however, wait until the 24th, to see if any editors from the WikiProjects are interested in working on it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold

I think there are enough concerns about sourcing, layout, and MoS issues for this article's GA listing to be in jeopardy. There are still aspects of the review to be completed, but I'm putting this on hold for now, as there are more issues than I can deal with quickly and easily myself. I'll notify significant contributors to see if there is interest on working together to address the concerns and keep the article listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There's been no progress, and there's a fair amount of work to be done. I'll inform associated WikiProjects to see if anyone is interested in helping clean up the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There's been some minor tinkering with citations but no progress. Indeed, some of the tinkering has been unhelpful and backward, such as removing inline cite needed tags to be replaced with a generic (and inaccurate) unsourced section tag. We usually do that the other way round. It's always more helpful to be precise with where the citation is needed.

Delisting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This was only listed on the Ireland and NI projects 8 days ago, so delisting so quickly after trying to involve editors who may be able to rescue this is unfair. You need to give some more time to see what can be done. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of work needs to be done. Nobody came onto this page saying they wanted to do the work, asking for more time - indeed, the comments on this page have supported delisting. The only work done has been trivial, and some has been negative. This GAR has been open 27 days in total, with many people contacted, and no progress made. That is more than sufficient. Anyway - no problem. Do the work at your own pace, and nominate it when you are ready. I'll be willing to give it a look over when you feel it is ready for nominating. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed while the GAR has been open for 27 days, your post to the appropriate geographical projects is only 8 days ago. I agree that there is much to do and I will see what can be accomplished. First is to fix the dead citations and then look at the rest and see what is missing. Perhaps I can rescue it though right now I can't say for sure. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)