Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blyth, Northumberland

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.

Blyth, Northumberland

edit

Self nomination: I've been working on this article since January and it has been GA since August 4. I've done further work and carried out suggested fixes, and having received positive feedback from the GA reviewer regarding the article's FA potential ([1]), I feel that it now meets FA criteria. Dbam Talk/Contributions 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport
  • I’d merge the first two paragraphs in the lead.
    • I think these should be kept seperate. The first paragraph is giving the fundamental details of the town at present and the second is explaining the history; I think their subjects are too disparate to merge. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to dislike short paragraphs. However, I've just had a look through for other featured UK towns/cities, and their leads seem similar to yours, so I can't really argue. Sheffield and Sheerness both exhibit the pattern of one para on location, and then one or two on history and development. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “It was during the 1960s that things began to decline” is a bit informal. How about “Blyth entered a period of decline in the 1960s”? That paragraph needs expansion and explanation – that’s a lot of industries that went downhill with no reason given (and, yes, I know it was all part of the industrial decline, but other readers might not)
    •  Done I've reworded the first bit and explained briefly the closures of the shipyards and the mines, i'm hoping this is what you had in mind. The closure of the railway i'm not sure about; I know the station was closed by Beeching but I don't know for sure if the closure of the line was directly related to this or not, so i've left it as it was. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This might be of interest on the railway issue (look for "Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway" about a third of the way down).
        • Thanks for that, but the line being discussed by Denis Murphy is the main line of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway which runs past the outskirts of Blyth. The line which actually ran into the town centre was a branch line which terminated at Blyth station for passengers and continued in a loop, rejoining the main line, for freight. It's this particular line that, while i've found some info on it, I can't find anything to say why the whole thing was shut down and removed. It was probably a combination of Beeching and the decline of the coal industry, but like I say I don't know for sure. Anyway, I have been meaning to expand the Transport links section with more rail info so this link should come in handy for that, cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain or wikilink Trust port?
  • “while Indonesia and Malaysia are both monthly” how about “services to…are both monthly”, otherwise it implies a periodic status for those countries.
  • I’d avoid “in recent times”, for vagueness.
  • Was there any public opposition to these energy projects? If it was notable, then a mention would be appropriate.
  • “They also assist with the development and integration of large- and small-scale renewables into the energy mix” sounds like press copy to me; it doesn’t really tell me what they do. Umm, a read of the citation explains why it reads like press copy…
  • Not to be mean to Blyth Spartans, but I personally wouldn’t class them as “one of England's best-known non-league football clubs”. You’ve got a good ref for their FA cup fame; I think a similar ref is required for this.
  • You’ve got “also based in Blyth are” and then a single sentence paragraph starting “Other sports teams based in Blyth”. I think merging the two para’s might be a way forward.
  • Could “interactive water features” be changed to something that describes what’s actually there?
  • If you have a ref for the “generally considered” in “the four chimneys of Blyth Power Station were generally considered to be Blyth's most notable landmark”, that would be good.
  • Are the port, which is apparantly still active, and the Quayside, which is now quiet, different places? If so, some note to distinguish them would help.
    •  Done "The port" more refers to the town of Blyth as a port rather than the port being a specific place within the town, the Quayside, on the other hand, is a specific place so i've reworded that section to make that clearer. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to disagree with any of the above. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I hope this standard of writing will continue in English city FACs. But:
  •  Done"Between the 12th and 18th centuries, records show ...", then a reference. Just "records" is not worth saying; either make the claim (with the reference) or tell us what type of records.
  •  Done"by 1855, 250,000 tons"—See MOS on this: use words for "a quarter of a million".
    •  Done"the filling-in of"—Why the hyphen?
    • Would be easier on our readers with a few more commas: "At this time it boasted one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the North East coast with five dry docks and four building slipways." Try "At this time, it boasted one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the North East coast, with five dry docks and four building slipways." Audit throughout. I see good uses of commas further on in "By 1930,..."
    •  DoneLaboured thematic equative: "It was during the 1960s that Blyth entered a period of steep decline." Just "During the 1960s, Blyth ...". Tony (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Epbr123 15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do think this is a very good article, but I have a few concerns:
    • "Blyth is also home to the non-League football club Blyth Spartans, famed for their giant-killing feats in the FA Cup". "Giant-killing feats" is not very encyclopedic terminology, and to the less knowledgable or impaired, possibly very misleading. Done
    • "These industries have largely vanished, but the port still thrives, with the shipment of paper and pulp from Scandinavia for the newspaper industries of England and Scotland." Is it just England and Scotland, or the the United Kingdom? - there's no source so I can't verify it. Done
    • The third paragraph contains some questionable statements about the local shopping centre's role in regeneration. Done That The Quayside is "peaceful" could be a POV term, is there a source to support this? Done
    • Is it possible to add the distance from and direction to London in the infobox? (by adding |london_distance= ) Done
    • Is there anything on the built environment, land use and topography of the local area which could be included regarding the Geography of Blyth? Doing...
    • I personally would like to see the article more closely matching with the WP:UKCITIES standard, though wouldn't oppose the article if it did not. Done -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    •  Done"The land was bought by Matthew White and his brother-in-law Richard Ridley, with accumulated fortunes from town-based trades." What is a "town-based trade"?
      • This was a left-over from the article's stub days and probably not something I would have put if i'd written that sentence from scratch. I don't know how they made their money and the ref doesn't elaborate on it, so I've removed it. I'll see if I can find out, though. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done"Things got worse during the Napoleonic Wars ..." seems a bit too colloquial. More importantly, the article seems to be suggesting that it was the salt tax that forced the salt trade in Blyth into decline. But it wasn't a local tax, and salt was still produced in other parts of the country. Was it simply too expensive producing salt from the salt pans?
      • I don't see how the tax being local or otherwise is relevent. It just seems to have been the primary factor in the decline of Blyth's salt trade and the ref I have doesn't go into any further detail. A couple of articles i've found about Seaton Sluice also cite the tax as the reason for the industry's demise there. I've reworded the "Things got worse..." bit. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  DoneI'd prefer to see the paragraph third from the end in the History section, about Blyth's civic history, in a separate Governance section, along with the political representation information given in the Government and demographics section, as per the WP:UKCITIES guidelines.
    •  DoneI don't see the logic of having a section that combines Government and demographics. I'd prefer to see separate Governance and Demography sections, again as per the WP:UKCITIES guidelines.
    • A few awkward uses of English, for instance "... the last passenger train departed Blyth on the 12 August."
    •  Done"Blyth once boasted four cinemas ..." One of my pet hates. Why is having four cinemas something to boast about? I'm not sure I see the benefit either of a list of cinemas that closed down 40 years ago.
      • I've reworded that first bit. As for actually having the list in the first place, well I think it is important to say that Blyth has no cinemas, since they are a major form of entertainment that one could reasonably expect to find in a town like Blyth. I think it's important to also explain that Blyth at one time did have several cinemas, rather than possibly giving the impression the there have never been any in the town. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done"It has recently undergone a £602,000 regeneration project ...". "Recently" is a term that will age. When was the project carried out? In 2007? How can anything "undergo a regeneration project" anyway?
    • "Prior to their demolition ..." is mistakenly formal. "Before their demolition ..."?  Done Dabomb87 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done""Two were 167 metres (548 ft) high and the other two were 137 metres (449 ft) high and they were visible for many miles". Trying to cram too much into one sentence.
    •  Done"It will cost an estimated £2.4 million and it is hoped that work will commence in September 2007". It's now October. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & Support

  • On the basis that the article meets current Featured article criteria to a sufficient degree.

Requests:

  • "England's economy is the second largest in Europe and the fifth largest in the world." Please cite source of claim.
  • "As part of the United Kingdom, England is a major centre of world economics." Please cite source of claim.
  • "tourism is the sixth largest industry in the UK, contributing 76 billion pounds to the economy" Please cite source of claim.

Request: "In recent times, several renewable energy projects have been established in Blyth. In 1992," Recent times is too relative; perhaps starting from 1992 or something more precise. Done

  • I've removed “in recent times” altogether. I personally felt it was OK since the following paras gave the dates of the various projects and therefore context. But as you're the second editor to point it out, it's probably best to remove it. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learnedo 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Serious concern, the article relies heavily on keystothepast.info, which doesn't appear on the surface to be a reliable source. Can you please explain: "In the list of references for the Keys to the Past records it may say that unpublished sources were used. Further information about these sources can found by contacting the relevant SMR/HER. It is important to note that the information on this website is not always up to date and that any commercial organisations should contact the relevant office to do an archaeological data search for desk based assessments or other commercial archaeological work. " and "Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council can accept no responsibility for any inaccuracy contained therein." Also, if the two items in See also are important enough to be included, why can't they be worked into the text of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to echo Sandy's concern about that reference. It's partly a matter of balance: there's a host of web references, and probably too many from the "Keys to the past" (supported by a lottery syndicate, I see). That site provides contact numbers for the librarians of three local organisations, almost to underline the proviso that Sandy reproduced above concerning verifiability. Is it going to be hard to gain access to a properly researched local history through those professionals? If just a few references from the suspect site were changed into authoritative ones, readers would at least know where to go for more information on some of the statements made. The only two books listed concern images. Tony (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) PS The writing has improved significantly. Thanks.[reply]
  • These are nothing new that the two previous has stated. I've seen this lack balance before and others have voted support on those articles. I've seen far worse, and this article is currently considered acceptable, and thus I maintain my pass vote. Of course the concerns should be dealt with but the main issue is that of feasibility. Leranedo 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only two books listed concern images." 79 references is better than most. Some don't even have book sources, and that astounds me. Leranedo 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and before I forget, the lack of balance may point to potential NPOV issues, but again, it's better most, and I like to fulfill my pass quota, so onlookers do not falsely assume I oppose every single article without just cause. Leranedo 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Announcing that you have a "pass quota", which I take to mean that you support a given number of articles, regardless of their quality, may cause you a larger problem with onlookers. Feel free to oppose as you see fit. I'd rather have an editor who votes his or her conviction, even if that means never supporting. Pagrashtak 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe that the concern expressed above concerning the reliability of one of the sources used is not well-founded, and results from misinterpreting a standard disclaimer. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment I've supported above; I'd consider "keys to the past" a reliable source. It's a joint venture by two councils, and the teams from those councils running it will be professional archeologists (a normal practice: all UK councils have responsibilities for archeology in their area). The councils will keep archives of archeological records, which will be the "unpublished sources" referred to. The UK planning process can require archeological investigations (usually for any mid-size development, or even small ones in archeologically sensitive areas), and commercial organisations will usually provide those investigations. The disclaimer will simply be usual practice for an organisation that prefers not to be sued. The "lottery syndicate" is actually government-controlled funding for "good causes", funded by a levy on the UK National Lottery. They splatter money about like water for "worthy" projects such as that website. I'll leave it to Dbam to comment on whether a decent history based on those records has been written, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that it hasn't. I see the point about balance of sources, but as I don't mistrust the site, I don't judge it to be a problem. J.Winklethorpe talk 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I can say is that i've used the best sources i've been able to find. Blyth's a pretty unremarkable town, so finding any detailed information on it isn't all that easy—Keys to the Past, however, has quite a bit of specific info and is cited accordingly. But I don't think the article relies heavily on it, as it's only used in one paragraph, it's just that KttP happens to keep individual bits of info on seperate pages, so requires several citations to cover it all. As for the reliability of the site, I totally agree with the two preceding comments. Regarding Tony1's apparent concern over the book sources, I'm not sure how being image-based makes the info they contain any less reliable. Dbam Talk/Contributions 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Tony1's concern was that lack of book sources possibly means the article isn't comprehensive. Have you checked your local library for any further info that could be added? Epbr123 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm still working on this FAC, but due to real-life stuff, i'll be unable to respond to further comments, requests or queries until Saturday, 10 November, sorry. Dbam Talk/Contributions 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Blyth,_Northumberland&oldid=1136098612"