Talk:The Level, Brighton

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Level, Brighton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• " south coast of the United Kingdom." yet infobox has it Brighton, England.
  • made it England Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• No need to link major geographical entities like United Kingdom (if it stays).
  • ok, England not linked Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "for huge dinner " huge isn't particularly enecylopedic in tone.
  • we are talking over 7,000 people so i feel "huge" is justified, but i could change to "large-scale" as in the text if you prefer Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt the magnitude, just the tone. large-scale works for me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • changed Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "cafés" no accent required, we've appropriated that word in English for some while now.
  • in British English I would argue either is fine
    • Well cafe is about ten times more prevalent and I'm not sure why we'd opt for a non-English variant. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • i'm not sure if it's exactly how i see it but Cafe (British) makes a distinction between café and cafe/greasyspoon/caff. Wikipedia:Diacritical marks (only an essay, not MoS) says both versions are ok Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Non-breaking space before ellipsis.
  • fixed, i think Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • fixed better now Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "on the Steine " overlinked.
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "in 1787, The Level " etc surely "the Level" per "the Beatles" etc.
  • yes this was a recent edit which felt a bit odd, i was unsure here since sources like the council use "The Level", looking around I don't see any hard and fast rule here on wikipedia so changed to "the" Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "50 years" personally would prefer fifty here.
  • per MOS:NUMERAL both versions are ok Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I know, but I'm just saying the numeral jars the flow. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • yes true, coming soon after "four years later" i see what you mean, i've rejigged and lost the 50 Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Formation and history" section heading, perhaps "early history" (as you have "recent history")
  • that works! Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "King George IV " overlinked.
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• " the 8 acres" eight.
  • officially 8.05 so changed to that for consistency Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "nowadays" doesn't feel encyclopedic in tone.
  • yes, changed to "today" Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Park Crescent is overlinked.
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• " Victoria " overlinked.
  • off with his head! fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "Old Steine" overlinked (and suddenly Old)
  • fixed as above Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "scenes ... were" non-breaking space between scenes & ellipsis.
  • done, such a great quote! Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• " mid- to late 19th" if you hyphenate mid, shouldn't you hyphenate late-?
  • agreed, then had a look around, seems fine for both to be unhyphenated Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• " playground " overlinked.
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• National Cycle route and buses mentioned in the infobox are not mentioned at all in the prose.
  • added to overview section Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "on September 1, 1984." date format inconsistent.
  • oops, fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "and The Levellers" -> "and the Levellers"
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• " skatepark " overlinked
  • it's linked in intro, overview and skatepark, so strictly the third mention should go but i'd like to keep it so skatepark is linked in its own section Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, no worries. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• "an elm tree" ditto, as is "Dutch elm disease".
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• " boccia and pétanque" both.
  • fixed Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Could link sensory garden.
  • done Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
  • FIXED Mujinga (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Spaced hyphen in ref titles should be spaced en-dashes.
  • sorry could you give me an example? i'm not sure what this refers to Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • " LUC - Environmental " should be " LUC – Environmental " for example. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • thanks, fixed for LUC and Cowley refs Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• The single note could easily be integrated into the main prose.
  • good point, done Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's it for a first run through, so it's on hold. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi The Rambling Man thanks for the comments, I've addressed them all and queried a few. Mujinga (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Mujinga responses above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man replied, i wish i could go for to a greasy spoon for an allday breakfast now Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  You and me both! Stay safe. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Bingo, good work, not going to die on a hill for cafe, so I'm happy to promote this, nice piece of work. Well done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Great! Thanks for the review, see you down at the Level when the pandemic is finally over :) Mujinga (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation format

This article appears to use a mix of shortened footnote citations, apparently via {{harvnb}} and ordinary full-length footnotes, using {{cite web}} and other Cite XXX templates inside <ref>...</ref> tags. I think this inconsistency is confusing. Some footnotes refer to the bibliography, and some do not. In my view a single consistent style should be used, either short footnotes or full ones. This came to my attention because a comparatively new editor wanted to use this as an example and justification for using a similar mixed styles. But before just making the change, i wanted to consult the active editors here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is confusing to have inconsistent referencing styles, but this is completely fine under wikipedia guidelines and I suppose reflects the fact that different editors use different styles. As you can see above, this article passed as a Good Article without a comment on referencing since there is nothing in the GA criteria that says the referencing style must be uniform and indeed even featured articles have inconsistencies, per the discussion about my query at the end of the review for Knap Hill. So the new editor is right to use this as an example, even if personally I don't think it is best practice. Mujinga (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(Comment from other partial contributor to this article) I must admit, I had no idea that mixing Harvnb and cite web/cite journal etc. was inconsistent. That was the way I learnt to "do" WP citations about 10 years ago, and every article I have ever written will have the same mix. I think the mindset I developed was something like this: "Use Harvnb for books and stick them in the Bibliography, use cite web or whatever for non-books and don't mention them in the Bibliography". I admit that I've never studied WP citation styles in great detail, which is probably why I have picked up this misconception/inconsistent practice. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 15:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised that this was not questioned during the GA review, but I see that the GA criteria do not mention a consistent citation format as one of the requirements. However, WP:CITEVAR (a section of the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources) says that among the changes Generally considered helpful and which any editor may make freely is imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit. These days with more books being online and with many significant and reliable sources being in non-book form, I think such a mix leads to potential confusion for readers and is not helpful. At any rate I convinced the new editor not to use this as a model. But do not be mislead, I am pretty sure this article is not in compliance with that guideline. Guidelines can, of course, have exceptions. But I would urge that this one is not a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I would note that unlike the GA criteria, the FA criteria (item 2c) require consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see Citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. so I don't think this would pass an FA review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)