Talk:Edinburgh/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Hi! I'll review this nomination over the next few days.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   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:

   Since much of the prose is unreferenced it is impossible to assess this item at this point.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

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:

   There is a problem regarding overlapping images described below.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• The article contains substantial portions of prose without any references. Is there any chance to back up relevant claims with citations in a reasonably short period of time - say a week or so?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• The article also employs a mix of citation styles. Even though that is not a problem for GA review, it would be preferable to have a uniform citation style. See WP:CITE for more information, as that will become an issue if the article is aimed at FA at some point.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding prose and MoS compliance:

• In ...some scholars have concluded that the town came into official existence..., "some scholars" sounds like a weasel expression. It would be better to clarify who are those, and if that is a prevailing opinion or not. As it stands now, I'm not clear if this opinion is based on anything better than conjecture or if the opinion is a fringe theory.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• ...likely to be a Latin version of the name they called themselves. sounds like editorializing and is entirely unnecessary because the first part of the sentence clearly establishes that the name was recorded by Romans and therefore had to be Latinized. The article would benefit from removal of that and any other instances of editorializing.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Writing c.1130, and copying from earlier texts... - {{circa}} may be used instead of simple "c." for better comprehension by casual readers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• Proper names such as "Edwinesburch" should not be italicized per MOS:ITALIC unless they are named vehicles or works of art and artifice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'd use double quotation marks for titles such as "oppidum Eden" per MOS:QUOTEMARK. The same applies for "tail" in Due to space restrictions imposed by the narrowness of the "tail",...--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• The History section, although concise, would probably benefit from introduction of subsections, providing greater reading comfort.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• In "...minor streets (called closes or wynds)", italics probably should not be used. Use of italics for individual words is warranted when writing about words as words - according to MOS:WORDSASWORDS, and I don't think MOS:FOREIGN use applies here. However, I suggest you check those MoS sections just to make sure.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• Consider using fewer parentheses in the prose as they make reading more difficult than necessary. There is no reason not to use them at all, but I trust the article would benefit from some copyediting in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• According to WP:EL, wiki articles should not normally contain any external links in the prose. One such example exists in "On a side note on the nightlife, Edinburgh is the Top UK city for male single travelers, according to a recent Excite EU study." The external link should be replaced with a reference (possibly to the same source), or included in the "External links" section if not needed in the prose. Go for the former here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• Why not wikilink names of countries appearing in the "twinning" section, provided they appear for the first time in the article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• The most significant issue regarding MoS compliance is that the article lead does not summarize the article properly. It should not exceed four paragraphs, and given the size of the article fixing this will be no easy task. See what can be moved out of the current incarnation of the lead and add other material per WP:LEAD.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Single digit numbers (in the prose) should be spelled out per WP:ORDINAL - for instance in The Monarchs have won the Premier League 3 times...--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Done

Regarding images:

• The article is beautifully illustrated, but I'm afraid there are two potential problems. The first one is that numerous images sandwich text in between them horizontally, making reading difficult at some points, where lots of images are grouped, e.g. in "Old Town" subsection. Further information on possible improvements to image placing may be found at MOS:IMAGELOCATION, although this issue is not so critical.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done
• The second problem in this area is that at least once (for me at least) images overlap. This occurs with "Edinburgh today" and "A panorama of Edinburgh, seen from the Scott Monument". Please reconsider if all the images are needed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done

General remarks:

• There are two links in the article pointing back to the same (via redirects): Coat of arms of Edinburgh, and Geography of Edinburgh. Those should be removed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• There are 10 dead links ([1]). Even though I assume they contained what is reported, I expect most or all of them could be repaired.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)  Done - the dead links have been fixed, the others are in the demography section which needs to be revised anyway due to new data being available.Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a huge amount of work went into this article. It has several shortcomings when checked against the GA criteria and the most significant one is referencing. Consequently, I'll place the article on hold for a week or so for now to allow time for improvements.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the recommendation to add section headings to the History section. This has produced several absurdities such as the 1707 Union appearing under "Union of the Crowns" or Jacobite rebellions appearing under "Coat of Arms". To add further headings would make the entire former section disintegrate into short, isolated statements under their own headings. This section was a sweeping view of history using broad brushstrokes. Its assertions, though factual, are difficult to reference. Try finding a book which states that "Cromwell occupied Edinburgh in 1650" or that "Edinburgh was at the centre of the Scottish Reformation", to give only two examples. (I've now just spotted that a 'bed & breakfast' ad is being used to support that last statement.) I even found myself adding a reference to 'prove' that England and Scotland united in 1707. It's absurd. Kim Traynor 21:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a published source itself giving an overview of a relevant piece of history or whatever other area might be in question to support entire paragraphs. No matter how absurd that may seem, WP:V verifiability standard is crucial to a GA review. In response to the examples you cited above, the 1650 bit may be referenced using this and the Reformation may use this source. And I really doubt that a 'bed & breakfast' is an acceptable secondary source per WP:RS.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

B+B fixed to a .ac.uk referenceJamesx12345 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well done to Tomobe03 for coming up with a better reference for Cromwell occupying Edinburgh, while I am sitting with all the classic works on the subject, none of which state the fact unequivocally. I've tried to copy and paste the reference, but it hasn't worked, as the link is looping back to showing the Edinburgh page, thus showing me up again as a Wikipedia novice. (I don't think the second example re the Reformation will do, however.) Kim Traynor 22:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. How about this one then? Which ref did you have problem with copy-pasting?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a fairly general passage about Knox rather than a specific statement about Edinburgh's role. I've found an authoritative text with a passage about the Reformation reaching Edinburgh and Knox being installed at St. Giles, so that would be preferable. In fact, the pivotal event that puts Edinburgh at the centre of the Reformation is the Siege of Leith, but I haven't found a good reference for that yet. The change I was unable to effect was from the Scott Spurlock reference to the reference work you found. Kim Traynor 23:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, working on this article is proving doubly frustrating because of the technical difficulties being experienced by the new servers (so I assume). The average save time at present seems to be between 20 and 30 seconds and often results in an error message. Repeating a save then leads to an edit conflict, requiring another attempt; also linespaces between paragraphs are appearing and disappearing for no apparent reason. It might be better to diary this exercise forward to a time when the servers settle down and start to work properly. Kim Traynor 16:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I reckon the massive size of the article has an effect - edits to small articles go through fine, whereas this has 130k of wikimarup that needs to be transcribed to html, and gets 5000 hits a day. It is a bit annoying, but editing a section at a time seem to help at least a bit. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't say I've found editing a single section any faster, and that has the disadvantage that the preview doesn't show how the reference note will display; so I take it on trust and frequently find I have not formatted correctly. So, apologies for the pain caused by my not formatting the references in the required style. Please feel free to point me in the direction of an appropriate tutorial. I have been using the simple ref. format I've been presented with when creating a new article. Right now I'm trying to reference the gap I've attempted to fill on 20thC developments and am lost in a labyrinth of detail concerning Edinburgh's urban history, again not finding conveniently summarising comments I can use as references. I'm also looking at Travel Guides in the hope of supporting the statement on the city's geographical location, but no joy so far. One thing I'd like to add to the article would be a couple of lines on the Abercrombie Plan of the 1940s, and the fact that it was stopped (so I believe) in the courts, but I can't find supporting references in print for that. It's the classic example of how the Edinburgh of today was almost lost as a result of misguided plans for urban regeneration. I suppose we got off lightly with the changes that did go through in the Wilson era. Mind you, I read somewhere that over two-thirds of the Old Town were destroyed between 1840 and 1900; and then there's the radical changes to Princes Street in the 1960s. It's all too much for one little article, really. Kim Traynor 18:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I found this regarding the distance from the sea http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Shc7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA675&dq=edinburgh+city+centre+distance+from+sea&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dSYZUfEWkajQBfrggMAI&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edinburgh%20city%20centre%20distance%20from%20sea&f=false] (halfway down, final column) - bit old, but a possibility. The more recent changes/ proposed changes could be interesting, especially proposals like the building of a flyover through the meadows. For citations, I copy-paste the templates at Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web with a pair of "ref" tags around them (typing them out confuses the markup). That confused my a lot initially... Good job with what you have done, though. The history section is much improved. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging comment. Unfortunately, I seem to be mentally challenged when attempting to fill out the appropriate reference template as I am still incurring incorrect displays; and the server error message appearing every time is driving me slowly batty. Perhaps I should just continue gathering references before thinking of posting them. The location reference looks a bit odd, but will do meantime. You'd think that reference works like the Shell Guide to Scotland or Lowland and Borders of Scotland would contain this information, but they don't. The fact that Edinburgh lies inland is a crucial determinant of its climate, so I'd be loath to discard that fact. The straightest line to the coast from the city centre to Dunbar can be measured using googlemaps (it's an extra 3 miles by road). Kim Traynor 22:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just put them in clean (hyperlink or formatted as they were before) an I can quickly brush them up as my computer is coping a bit better. You are the one with the books and skills, I'm just a glorified bot:) Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done that for the ref to essay within a book with two editors (couldn;t find a precise template), but think I'll manage with more straightforward single author works. I have some references lined up but am failing to post because I am getting up to three or four error messages and edit conflicts each time. I'm working on a draft for a new article on Scottish royal burghs at present, but will be suspending that operation until Wikipedia get their system sorted out. It's too much hard work at present. Kim Traynor 12:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been a real uphill struggle because of Wikipedia's current gremlins. I'm still having to post each edit several times before it registers. I appreciate the desire to shorten the intro, but I feel an important point has been lost regarding the high number of listed buildings in the city. Perhaps this could be reinstated in shortened forms such as ", a higher proportion in relation to area than any other city in the United Kingdom". That seems to be a significant fact worth stating. The reference that supported the original statement may have to be retrieved. Good that you found a reference for situation in relation to North Berwick (though the more direct line of latitude meets the coast at Dunbar), but I'm not sure of the wisdom of locating it west of relatively unknown Portobello rather than inland from Leith with which it has had a long historical relationship. I think a link to Leith would be preferable to one to Portobello. Also, I'm not sure why there's any need to support these distances with references, since anyone can consult a map if they wish to confirm their veracity. I don't see that they need a link to a statement of proof . Kim Traynor 23:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, references are needed wherever information may be challenged or may possibly be challenged, but you can also use a map as a reference - see {{Cite map}} for details.

The article has definitely improved since ten days ago, but I'm afraid it still falls short of GA criteria. This specifically pertains to unreferenced claims in the article - At this point there are still a few paragraphs with no references in Geography, Economy and History sections, but substantial chunks of the prose are still unreferenced (added some inline tags, with further such instances elsewhere, e.g. Old Town, Leith subsections). The issue of WP:LEAD compliance (the lead section does not summarize the article properly) raised above has not been addressed yet. I understand that it is the best option to iron out the main body prose to a reasonable degree and then tackle the lead, but this issue only illustrates that the article still needs work.

Ten days ago, I placed the article on hold for a week to fix substantial problems (mostly in terms of referencing) found in the article. I appreciate that the progress made is great, but further efforts are needed. Since the changes introduced in the article in the past ten days are definitely leading development of the article in the right direction I am confident that the results desired by the nominator and other significant contributors to the article will be achieved. However, the GAN review hold should not exceed a week or so, and I will fail this nomination at this time. Please do continue to improve the article on the points raised in this review and renominate - I'll be more than happy to revisit the article once it's ready for GAN. Cheers,--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)