Talk:Whitby/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bot output of the Automatic Peer review script (just a tool)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 tons, use 500 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500 tons.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've now edited the article to cover the most important bits. Remaining are:

• The lead could do with a bit more summarizing (shorter, not longer) of what is there, and perhaps adding some (short) information bits of the sections of the article that have not been covered in the lead yet. But some of the sections could do with further summarizing, with less flowery wording. Recommendations: See AndyZ's tutorial.
• Some sections can still be combined, e.g. geography and landmarks? transport and public services? Needs good looking into.

Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

Comment

I know when I was editing this article I had in mind Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, and I think Harkey and Keith D did too. I'm more than slightly surprised at the result of the above peer review in the light of the GA review comments especially about the lead. I really don't think the article has improved as a result of being subjected to what a bot-generated list has come up with. This, "it was named Whitby since the 11th century" and "The cliffs around Whitby hold ammonite fossils" from the review isn't helpful either. The history section reall does need sub dividing with headers.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I must say I was surprised at the re-trimming of the lead after material was added as a result of the GA review. I also think that the history section is too long to not have any sub-headings. If we are going to summary style and creating sub articles then the history can be trimmed back and headings removed, but at this stage this is not the case. Keith D (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I too am quite perplexed and I would much rather follow the guidelines suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements and the suggestions of a well respected GA reviewer than a bot generated boilerplate text. The lead was expanded to " summarize the most important points" as per WP:Lead. The history section needs some sub-headings as the history of the town is not the history of the abbey and there is a separate article on Whitby Abbey. However, I will await further comment from the GA reviewer before I make any amendments.--Harkey (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have already added back some of the content of the lead. The next paragraph didn't really make much sense otherwise.--Harkey (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan through the reviewer's contributions seems to indicate an editor with no experience of settlement articles. I'd be tempted to restore the original version. He ought to be pointed to the settlement guidelines if this is what he is going to do.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have ask SilkTork for suggestions on how to proceed. Keith D (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just proceed on further improving the article. Reviewer and Copy-Editors are normal people with a personal view on article quality improvement. There isn't a calculation possible whether any article is "Good" or not: it is all subjection, interpretation, and gut feeling, of these normal people. And to help you with the improvement there are a few good tools out there, e.g., the peerreviewscript which measures some rules of thumb by which you can measure an article, and which provides suggestions (as the GA review does). It is all up to yourself how you interpret the suggestions. E.g., my interpretation of the WP:Lead is to have a minimal lead with ONLY a summary of the article, including ONLY the important aspects of an article. Wim van Dorst (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

• The three main and most common independent audits of an article are GAN, Peer Review and FAC. During each of those processes, a range of views is welcomed; however, it is not usual to conduct more than one audit simultaneously, as there is the potential for conflicting advice to be given, or - at least - to create difficulties for contributors in having to follow advice given simultaneously in two different places. The guidance in Wikipedia:Peer review is that a Peer Review should not take place within 14 days of a previous review or FAC. The situation here is that a request for a Peer Review was made at the same time as a request for GAN. The PR Reviewer and the GA reviewer have both independently responded to those requests at around the same time (which doesn't often happen). The PR review was done in good faith, and will have points of value. As with the GA review, the advice is coming from a fellow editor, and the advice can be taken, can be adapted, can be questioned, or can be ignored. The beauty and power of Wikipedia is that it is collaborative. Each article has the benefit of many minds working on it. And the best articles are those which come from the labours of different people with different views, resulting in a truly rounded and balanced article. Any edits made to an article can be amended - they can be built on, or can be removed - if other editors feel that would be an improvement. I will continue with the GA review shortly - I have a couple of other reviews I wish to attend to first - in the meantime the main editors here should continue editing the article as they would normally, using their best judgement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A peer review was not requested.See the request here. We asked for the article to be copy edited by the GOCE. The copy editor took it upon him/herself to use a peer review bot.--Harkey (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad - I saw this, and hadn't noticed that the PR review had been done and was closed before the GAN request, and the copy edit request you are talking about came later, and was - as you say - for a copy edit. I'll leave a note on the reviewer's talkpage - I think the work was done in good faith, though there has been a bit of a muddle. We live and learn. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Steam Bus

Just as I'm wrapping up the GAN on this article an email pops into my inbox: "Elizabeth, Whitby’s Iconic Steam Bus to visit The National Brewery Centre on Sunday 6th November 2011. Visitors to The National Brewery Centre on Sunday 6th November will have the opportunity to see, and experience a ride on Elizabeth, the only three –axled steam bus in the world that still works commercially on a daily basis. To celebrate her 80th birthday, Elizabeth is taking a break from her normal duties offering rides in her home town of Whitby, to undertake an epic ten day road trip, departing from Whitby on November 2nd and arriving in London in time to take a leading position in The Lord Mayor’s Show parade on November 12th." Here's a link to their website. Might be worth including a mention in the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)