Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Skegness/archive1

< 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 by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 14 September 2020 [1].

Skegness

edit
Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There won't be many British editors here who haven't heard of Skegness. It is one of the country's most popular seaside destinations. As one local historian put it, "Skeggy" is the "summertime Mecca ... for the toiling thousands of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby". The season isn't so rigidly defined these days, but when industry was still the heartbeat of the East Midland's factory towns, in six short weeks each summer Skegness became host to hundreds of thousands of workers seeking cheap fun, knobbly knee contests and sandy beaches.

This article marks my return to article improvement after several years focusing on creation. I've tried to capture the fascinating development and largely forgotten earlier history of this town, from its medieval port to its early modern slump following a disastrous flood, and from its burgeoning status as a high-end bathing place for the gentry, to its later reputation as a tacky resort for the masses. Today, the tourism industry and the town's dependence on it are at once a boon and a curse; it makes a lot of money, but there's a lot of deprivation and the town has earned the nickname "Brexit-on-Sea" in recent years. So read on to find out about this fascinating part of England's past and its present. I think this piece meets all the criteria for a Featured Article and I look forward to any feedback. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the railway line
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Will look into it -- it's not something I have done before.
  • File:PLmap.png: is just the background from OSM, or the line data as well?
    • I don't know and cannot see any indication either way. What effect does this have on licensing/use if it is?
  • File:Derbyshire_Miners'_Holiday_Camp,_Skegness,_1940s.jpg: title gives a date of 1940s, image description page says 2000 - suggesting uploader is not original photographer
  • File:Lifeboat_crew,_Skegness,_Lincolnshire_RMG_G02795.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found no evidence of it being published. If it was not, how does that effect it.
    • Thanks Nikkimaria for doing that so promptly. I've addressed each point above, though mostly with queries (sorry) -- I'd be grateful of your input on them. As a note, I'm not overly attached to any of the pictures and will drop them if the their copyright tags can't be put in order. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
      • Thanks again Nikkimaria. I have removed the coastguard pic and replaced it with another from Geograph, which looks fine to me. I have binned the holiday camp image altogether. I have also remade the Poacher Line image from scratch and inserted it in place of the old one. I used Inkscape to draw over a screenshot of OpenStreetMap for the coastline and current railways, then drew on lines for the disused railways based on a drawing in a 1982 book. Is that okay and have I used the right licence? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment from Amakuru - this looks like a well-written and referenced article, but my first instinct is that it's too long at the moment. The page size tool shows 77 kB of readable prose, which makes it considerably longer than other city FAs, such as Canberra (56 kB) and Dhaka (42 kB) and Arlington, Washington (33 kB). The first two are capital cities too, so if anything you'd expect a somewhat longer article there than a provincial town such as Skegness. In particular, the "History" section, which is actually two separate top-level sections, seems much longer than the "summary style" I'd expect in a general article. It's all good stuff, but some of it would be usefully placed in a History of Skegness subpage, with a shorter summary here of a length similar to the three articles I mention above. Of the other sections, at a glance I'd also say "Religion" is a bit on the long side - many city articles don't have this at all, "Notable people" also seems long and possible also "Public services and infrastructure"/"Historic buildings", which in many ways are related concepts. I get that it's great to have all this info, but if the article ends up too much of an ask to read from start to finish as a result, then that detracts somewhat. Will await others, but think I would like to see some splitting out before supporting. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Amakuru. The length of the article was my only concern before I brought it here and I wondered whether it would come up. I decided to go ahead with the nomination when I became aware that there are many other FAs which are longer, some substantially so. It's hard to compare places: Arlington is also a much newer town, founded in the 1890s, whereas Skegness has a recorded history stretching back a thousand years. I think one of the main issues for me is that major cities like Dhaka (which was also promoted in 2006 when we had different standards for comprehensiveness) can easily be forked due to their geographical size, wealth of source material and importance, but I question whether a comparatively small town like Skegness should or could have a separate history article. I guess that's subjective though. As for religion, I'd say the size of that section is about right and it's pretty common in UK place articles (see, e.g. Bristol and Chadderton). It gives a prose-form list and the briefest summary of each place of worship and their foundation. Having said all of this, I am very grateful for your points. If it's okay with you, I will wait to see if I get any other feedback before this is archived; if other editors express similar views, I shall go away and fork out some of the material and condense the article. Thanks once again, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: thanks, it's looking quite a lot better now although I think the "Early History" and "History of the seaside resort" sections should be merged into one, as it's very unusual not to have History as a single section in summary articles, even in articles with quite long reams of text... The existing five sections could probably just sit under one heading although if appropriate you could also merge them down a bit. Now that I think the macro issue has been solved, I feel more inclined to have a more detailed look so will hopefully carve out a bit of time to do that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru great, thanks. Any comments you can spare would be appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I've now merged the history sections. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Beginning my review, as promised. First bit of Geography section for now, more to come:
  • The ref for "Parishes map",[2] and indeed its archive copy,[3] both appear to be dead and returning 404 errors.
  • Boston - as this is the first mention in the body of the article, it should be linked here. And then unlinked in the History section. Lincoln similarly.
  • "13.12–16.40 ft" - this many significant figures seems excessive, when the metric figure is just 4–5 m.
  • And actually, looking at the OS map, there is in fact a 10 metre contour visible on the sand dunes to the north of the town between Skegness and Seathorne, as well as a 6m spot height near North Parade...
  • "it runs north-west in a narrow band to north of Louth in the Wolds" - it runs to Louth, but does it start at Skegness? I assume so since it's running north-west, but maybe clarify this.
  • "tidal flat deposits" - hyphen between tidal and flat, per MOS:HYPHEN
  • "deposited since the end of the last ice age during the Holocene" - I'm not sure what the last part refers to. Were the deposits deposited during the Holocene, or was the end of the last ice age during the Holocene? This may be obvious to someone who knows their geological eras, but would be useful to clarify.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, this wall largely saved the town during the 1953 flood, though gardens, the amusements and part of the pier were damaged" - this could be reworded slightly... having nevertheless and though sounds like too many levels of indirection!
  • "24 km (15 mi) stretch of coast" - the distances above (to Boston and Lincoln) showed miles first then km. Suggest consistency one way or the other.
  • Weather box - this is usually not collapsed in other articles I've seen
  • Most settlement FAs have some description of the layout of the town, including suburbs etc. Obviously Skeggy is a smaller settlement than many of those, but might be worth having something about the layout of the town in this section.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru thanks for your comments. I've addressed all of your comments through this edit, except for the one about describing the town in more detail; there is little to add without going into detail about the road layout: none of the suburbs except Seathorne, Winthorpe and Seacroft (already described) seem to have names and the general layout is clear from the map in this section. I look forward to any further comments you may have. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Amakuru Apologies, I didn't mention you in yesterday's edit summary -- just pinging as a courtesy in case you missed my response. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Noswall59: that's fine, I did see it. Will hopefully come back with more today although can't promise I'll have time! Looks like you've got quite a bit of support here now anyway, so will just do as much as I can.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

I'm adding this to the urgents list to hopefully scare up a few reviews... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Noswall59 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • SupportCMD (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Comments My first impression was also the length, although I understand the argument this is already quite a specific article. The second impression is of MOS:OVERSECTION. That is an overwhelming table of contents, and looking through the article, many subsections are tiny. Further, the only lv2 sections with any text outside of subsections are Geography, Transport, Historic Buildings, and Notable People. The subsection title "Physical geography and geology" seems entirely redundant to the section title "Geography and geology". Do the short Economy and Education sections need what seem like headers that are redundant to natural flow? Culture seems arbitrarily subsectioned. On overall structure, I don't see from the article why Religion is separated from Demographics, is this based on similar articles or external sources? A quite significant point for consideration is that this article currently fails WP:LEAD, with the lead reading as an abbreviated history rather than a summary of the article as a whole. As a final initial point, I'm surprised by the relative paucity of pictures. Most articles I run across often seem to have the opposite problem. If there's no good and relevant images then there's no good and relevant images, but it's surprising if that's the case. CMD (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis thanks very much for your comments. I have done the following:
  • I have trimmed 6k off the readable prose size, mostly by reducing the notable people, history and religion sections. I can't see where I could cut much more without losing a good deal of factual content or forking.
  • I have halved the number of level 3 sections; there are now none for geography, education and religion, and there are fewer in culture, public services and demography. I have merged some short paragraphs accordingly.
  • The demographics for religion are now in demography; the religion section now includes only information on places of worship and has had its name changed to "Religious sites" (as per WP:UKTOWNS).
  • I have expanded the lead's contents to include material on culture (including attractions), public services, schools, healthcare, the newspapers, places of worship, the police HQ and court, and the lifeboat station. I have also trimmed back the history stuff, so the lead is about the same size prose-wise.
  • The trick is finding good images. Is there anything in particular that you feel is missing? I'll see if I can find suitable pictures of the hospital, town hall, constituency boundaries and something for the geography section and notable people sectons. There don't appear to be any free images of the schools and there are no other free historical images online.
I think this covers all of your queries. What do you think of it now? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Chipmunkdavis I've tried looking for photos of notable people; the key ones, like Butlin, Ray Clemence and Elizabeth Allen all have either poor-quality or not-clearly-free images. There are also no images of the hospital, the schools, or the town hall. Adding an image into the geography section creates issues when viewing a tablet device, because the infobox squeezes content downwards, making the whole section look naff. As I said above, if there's anything more you'd like to see, I can see what I can do. I do have a map I made of the shifting coastline based on Pawley's PhD thesis, but I don't know what the copyright situation is for something like that... Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'm usually a fan of dumping onto subpages rather than removal on a whole-wiki basis, but certainly for this page as a standalone the trimming is useful. It was mentioned above that history may just be too long, and it has by itself 12 section headers. Perhaps wait for further comments before doing anything drastic, but there's always the option of doing what Amakuru mentioned of dumping it all to a subpage (could even use the old lead and get an easy GA probably).
Thank you for pointing to UKTOWNS. I don't agree with some of its structure decisions, but if you're following that structure that's reasonable. I appreciate the edits to the lead, it's much more comprehensive now.
On images, like I said if they don't exist they don't exist, I'm just surprised. The article as a whole is missing is a good map. The geography section might use a photo of the sea defences. There's various empty sections. At any rate if you've given it a go I don't think it'll hold back the nomination. However, one thing that is key about images is that per WP:ACCESS they need to be within the section they are being used to illustrate. There are a few places in the article where I think the image has been placed at the end of a previous subsection, which need to be moved. An image needs to be shifted from the "Since 1945" subsection, which has sandwiching; perhaps the caravan park can move to workforce and deprivation.
I'll take a closer look through the article later. For now, I know it's rounding, but I still don't think you can say 8 people are "making up 0% of the population". CMD (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis Thanks very much. I've decided to bite the bullet and fork the history section to History of Skegness; I've also moved some of the material from culture, education and religious sites which felt too historical/niche to stay in the main article. I have cut down nearly 20k of readable prose in the process. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That history article is already 35kB by itself! Why isn't the map used on this history article used on the main article? Prose of the main article is now 56 kB, which while long is within guidelines.

  • The sentence on distance to Lincoln and Boston does not seem to be in the article body or sourced, and the second distance is missing a convert template.
Good catch. Now cited in the body and conversion templates used throughout.
  • Should "to the headland which" read "to a headland which"?
Changed.
  • The concept of "the landowner" may need to be introduced more clearly, or removed from the lead, as it sites without context for those who aren't familiar with English history.
I have linked "landowner" and explicitly named and linked the earl; he was literally the man who owned the land, so I'm not sure how I could be clearer.
  • I would suggest a different wording to "Skegness's trade", as it comes right after a mention of deindustrialisation.
Changed.
  • Does "visiting for a second holiday" mean a repeat trip to Skegness or a second trip in one year?
It means going there as well as taking a holiday abroad. I've tweaked to clarify this.

CMD (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What caused the destruction of the offshore islands?
Sentence added to clarify -- it was very likely the exceptionally bad weather recorded during the 13th century.
  • How does the Church of St Clement fit into the history section? The caption could indicate the connection.
It not longer does. I've moved the image to the "Historic buildings" section.
  • How local are these gentry?
I've added a note to clarify, but no one explicitly says what the catchment area is.
  • The first mention of "Roman Bank" doesn't explain what it is.
I've now added a mention explaining its origin. It's a bank (i.e. levee) which, despite its name, is medieval or 16th century.
  • The mention of the Marine Gardens could use a brief explanation as to what they are.
Clarified (hopefully – other sources don't explain much more about what it was)
  • "By 1981 20 caravan sites" could probably use a comma.
Comma added
  • The 2011 VisitEngland source seems to refer to places in England not the whole UK.
Clarified in the lead and body.

CMD (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "PPR (Prior Permission Required) is stated for landing" should probably say "required for landing".
Changed.
  • I would put local politics before national politics.
Done
  • Capitalisation of "urban district council" is inconsistent, and it is sometimes referred to by an acronym despite that acronym not being introduced anywhere.
Changed. I've used capitalisation for the proper noun (Skegness Urban District Council), but otherwise used lowercase (e.g. "built by the urban district council..."). UDC is now introduced before its first use as an abbreviation.
  • Why are Skegness Grammar school and Skegness Academy described as coeducational when the gender intake of other schools is not mentioned?
In the UK, I'm pretty sure all state primary schools and further education providers are coeducational; it is stated in each of the sources used for the five current schools so I've clarified this in the text but the FE colleges don't specify, so I've not explicitly stated it.
  • "boys and girls" should probably be changed to "pupils" to match the later sentence.
Changed
  • I can't discern the pattern for the ordering of notable people within each paragraph.
The paragraph order is: entertainment; religion; sports; miscellaneous. I've tried to clarify this.
  • I think the note for the 1882 census should independently include a citation to Gurnham (1972), p. 73.
Done
  • The note on Britain's first switchback railway needs a source for the Skegness Herald page.
Changed to a better source.
  • Why are some Bibliography authors redlinked?
Because the authors are probably notable enough to have their own articles.

CMD (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chipmunkdavis. Hopefully I've addressed all of your points, except for the offshore islands one: I need to re-read the source to see if he says what destroyed the islands. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, Chipmunkdavis. I have now addressed every point. Thanks again for your comments. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
On the topic of the landowner, it will not be obvious to many readers how the whole (or most of the) town could come to be owned by a single person. Given there are preceding sentences covering a few hundred years of the settlement, seeing "landowner" brings to mind the question "landowner of what?" The body explains the historical process of enclosure and how it led to the land being owned, but for the lead this is left to be assumed knowledge. Perhaps it could say "primary landowner", or "majority landowner", or the like, which would make it a bit less jarring.
Regarding notable people, I meant I couldn't understand the order of say just the entertainers. However, I think I now see they are loosely grouped into more specific categories.
Having browsed through a few other UK settlements at FA level, I don't see anything obvious they have that this article lacks that can't be explained by local differences or normal editorial variation. As it stands, happy to support. CMD (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis thanks for taking the time to review this and for being so patient while I made the changes. I have tweaked the lead to clarify the landowner situation; hopefully, it makes more sense to non-UK readers now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "it also incorporates Winthorpe (previously its own parish)". "previously its own parish" sounds odd to me and not important enough for the lead. I suggest deleting.
Done
  • "Historically Skegness was situated further east and at the mouth of The Wash;" This also seems confusing to me. Perhaps "The original Skegness, which was lost to the sea, was situated further east at the mouth of The Wash".
Swapped
  • "following the Great Recession" I have not come across this expression before as referring specifically to the one of 2007 to 2009 and suggest adding the date for clarity.
Clarified
  • "several Christian places of worship" Why not churches?
Done
  • "superficial geology". I assume this means Superficial deposits, that is Quaternary deposits built up over the last 2.6 million years. This seems strange as you say they have built up over the last 12,000 years, and are therefore Holocene. You have to go by your sources, but superficial geology is an obscure expression and should be linked to Superficial deposits.
I know very little about geology. All I can say is that the BGS map is the source I used and it shows most of the town as having tidal flat deposits built up over the last 11,800 years, although the blown sand on the beach is said to have accreted during the Quaternary period as a whole. I've therefore simply said that: "The superficial deposits consist of clay and silt tidal flat deposits built up during the Quaternary period (the last 2.59 million years). The shoreline consists of blown sand and beach and tidal flat deposits in the form of clay, silt and sand." Since I used it, they have updated the map and the whole area is now described as "tidal flat deposits -- clay and silt", so I've amended that. I've also linked superficial deposits. Is this acceptable now?
  • I do have some knowledge of geology, although this is the first time I have come across the distinction between superficial deposits and bedrock geology as meaning Quaternary and pre-Quaternary. The Ferriby Chalk Formation is part of the Chalk Group, so you could link to that. The reference to Quaternary is misleading in this case as they are saying that all the surface deposits are Holocene. I suggest "The bedrock under the town is part of the [[Chalk Group|Ferriby Chalk Formation]], a [[sedimentary]] layer formed around 100 million years ago during the [[Cretaceous]] period. The surface layers are tidal flat deposits of clay and silt, deposited since the end of the [[Younger Dryas|last ice age]] during the [[Holocene]]." This is based on the BGS map and you can add to it based on your other sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "middle ages" should be capitalised.
Done
  • "There is evidence of late Iron-Age and early Roman saltmaking activity in the coastal area which Skegness now occupies." Why not just "in the Skegness area"?
Done
  • "who enclosed 400 acres of saltmarsh in 1627 and in the 17th century reclaimed more marshland which had emerged from the sea" This does not sound right as 1627 is in the 17th century. Maybe "later in the century"?
Good catch -- I think I must have lopped that too far during a previous trim.
  • "This stagnation coincided with a declining number of day-trippers, which fell from a peak of 230,277 in 1882 to 118,473 in 1885." Is it known why?
The sources are oddly silent on this, with Gurnham sound frustrated at the lack of local comment on the issue, save a contemporary comment in the local paper that a fall in numbers reflected a "depression in Nottingham's trade". I suspect it is the product of localised effects of the Long Depression, which lasted from the 1870s to the 1890s. Do you feel that is sufficient for me to add anything?
  • "Botton's Bros" The spelling looks wrong. This article is the only hit on a google search of "Botton's Bros".
You're right, I introduced it when I meant to switch from Botton's to Botton Bros. Amended.
  • "were replaced with the Embassy Centre in 1999" What is the Embassy Centre? A shopping parade?
It is principally a theatre; having reviewed the source, the name is now the Embassy Theatre Complex (the Centre was a previous name) so I've amended the article to that effect. There is an adjacent swimming pool and leisure centre, which I've now mentioned as well.
Thanks very much Dudley Miles. I shall await further comments. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Dudley Miles thanks for your response to the query about geology. I have now amended the article based on your response. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • It is helpful to create archive copies of online pages in case they disappear. There is a tool which works for most web pages at [4].
I have run the bot and it did not archive anything, presumably because they were all archived.
No. Archiving is adding backup versions of sources to references. The version of the bot you used does not seem to work, and the article is too large for the bot for one page. I have split the article in two in sandboxes and run the bot on each half, then copied the archived version back. I got it wrong the first time, but hopefully OK now. Revert if not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Skegness was the fourth most popular holiday destination in England for tourists from the United Kingdom" "from the UK" sounds odd when they are not going abroad. "UK residents" as in the source would be better.
Changed
  • "Stiebels and the ride manufacturer J. R. Mitchell were still operating in the late 1980s, alongside Rose-Forgrove and Sandersons Forklifts.[126] The industrial estate, off Wainfleet Road, continues to house a range of businesses and the district council have proposed expanding it as of 2016." This is very dated. Can you not get more up to date information, for example on the council web site?
There is no official directory or more up-to-date history. I have used Google Maps to offer a summary of current occupants, and have beefed up the historical aspects to offer some explanation of what has happened since the 1980s.
  • "Nevertheless, Skegness is relatively weak at offering comparison goods" What are comparison goods? It is not helpful to provide a red link to an obscure term. Ditto elementary occupations.
Both articles are created here and here.
  • Religion. Perhaps also of interest that the figures for 'no religion' and 'religion not stated' are almost the same as the national average.
Done.
  • "in the most deprived quintile nationally, compared with 20% for England as a whole; only 7.7% fell in the least-deprived three quintiles, compared to 60% for England" I do not think you need to say 20% and 60% for England, as this applies by definition - one quintile is 20%.
Done.
  • Candleshoe links to a film of that name.
Replaced with red-link to the wapentake.
  • "the hospital includes a contraception and advice centre" "the hospital includes a contraception and general health advice centre"?
Changed.
Thanks Dudley Miles. That latest tranche should now be done. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
This has been fixed. I have also reviewed the Webarchive templates -- thank you for adding them. A few pointed to paywalled resources, so I have removed those. They were also inserted in the wrong place in each reference, so I have moved them to the end of each ref tag. I have just noticed that about two thirds of them have their dates in YYYY-MM-DD format, whereas all other dates in the article are in DD Month YYYY, so I've started to fix that. Otherwise, I think that's everything (so far anyway). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • There is a script to fix the date formats, but I cannot remember the details. If you have it installed, when editing you will see options under tools on the left to fix them. I will do it now. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the post-war period, the only secondary education available to Skegness's children was at Magdalen College School, a grammar school in Wainfleet." Which war?
Clarified chronology
  • "with the rest of the building dating to the later Middle Ages at the earliest and probably the mid-16th century;" This sounds clumsy. Maybe "with the rest of the building probably dating to the mid-16th century;"
Edited
I usually prefer one column, but this is a long bibliography and I think the columns make it easier for the eye to scan.
Dudley Miles. Thanks for all of that (especially for the formatting fix!) I've now made all the requested changes. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you very much! (I've had a look at the notes and it seems the Reflist is splitting into columns automatically so I'm not sure it can easily be fixed). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I assume that the reason is that you reflist for both notes and citations, so the 30em applies to both. I use {{efn|Note.}} for notes and then {{notelist}} instead of {{Reflist|group="n"}}, and then you can have different column formatting for notes and citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Laser brain

edit

Just made it through the lead but it doesn't seem as polished as I hoped. Some random potshots:

  • "lost to the sea" being repeated in the lead doesn't make much sense.
  • "The arrival of package holidays abroad" - this phrase confuses me. Do you mean the advent of package holidays abroad being sold to Brits?
  • "took visitors away from Skegness's in the late 20th century" I don't understand the use of possessive here.
  • "It has a reputation as a traditional English seaside resort; as well as the long, sandy beach, the seafront's attractions include amusement arcades, eateries, Botton's fairground and the pier, as well as nightclubs and bars." Bit of a trainwreck of a unrelated ideas that don't need to be living in the same sentence.
  • "The town also hosts Natureland Seal Sanctuary, a museum, an aquarium, golf links, a heritage railway, an annual carnival and a yearly arts festival; to the south is Gibraltar Point nature reserve." Same comment
  • "Despite the arrival of a number of manufacturing firms" - "a number of" is poor prose. Either state the number, or use a term like "several".
  • "Residents are served by five state primary schools and a preparatory school, two state secondary schools (one of which is selective), several colleges, a community hospital, several churches and two local newspapers; the town is home to the divisional police headquarters, a magistrates court and a lifeboat station." Same comment as before... lots of overly long sentences where using a semicolon to join all that information affects readability negatively.

Will continue later, but someone might need to take a hatchet to some of these long sentences. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain: thanks for your comments. Apologies for some of these prose issues in the lead; it's one of the few aspects of the article which I've changed a lot over the course of this review and, in doing so, had introduced some of the issues you cited above. I've copyedited it here, which I believe addresses each of your concerns. I look forward to any comments you may have about the rest of the article. I will likely be unable to make any changes until tomorrow, however. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! I will resume reviewing today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "Sand continues to accrete at the southern end of Skegness in the early 21st century, but coastal erosion carries on immediately north of the town; following the 1953 flood, sea defences have been built along a 24 km (15 mi) stretch of coast between Mablethorpe (to the north) and Skegness to prevent erosion, but currents remove sediment and the defences hinder dune development; a nourishment scheme began operation in 1994 to replace lost sand." Sentences like these are just wildly long and need to be broken up. I noted some of the lead. Any time you're using semicolons to join independent clauses, please take a look at not just whether they're peripherally related, but whether you're affecting readability.
I have broken the sentence up and checked the rest of the article, chopping a few others up as well.
  • "During the medieval period the offshore islands which sheltered the coast were destroyed, very likely in the 13th century during a period of exceptionally stormy weather." This sentence doesn't have an immediate citation—is it meant to be covered by the next one? It doesn't bear repeating, but I usually look for a citation when I see phrases like "very likely".
It is supported by that citation to Pawley's thesis.
  • "This stagnation coincided with a declining number of day-trippers, which fell from a peak of 230,277 in 1882 to 118,473 in 1885." Is there a known explanation for the decline?
No. Because Dudley also asked about this above, I've added a sentence to say that Gurnham does not offer an explanation for it though recites one report about falling trade in Nottingham. Some Googling suggests that industry in the Nottingham area went through a rough patch in the 1880s, but it'd be OR to connect that with Skegness's dip in trade.
  • "The Embassy Ballroom and the swimming baths were replaced in 1999 with the Embassy Theatre Complex, which includes a theatre, indoor swimming pool, leisure centre and cark park" Car park? I'd change it but maybe a cark park is a thing :)
Excellent catch, changed!
  • It looks like your cited sources separate "roller coaster"—is there a reason for piping/combining it?
I've changed it, though either is acceptable.
  • There may be some overlinking throughout but maybe it's deliberate because of the length? I think I spotted "accretion" or "accreted" linked a 3–4 times. Dic-defs like "fishing" (twice linked), "ferry" etc are probably not needed.
I've gone through using the duplicate link spotter tool and pruned all but a couple where they are introduced at different ends of the article, like Methodism (in religion and history) and social renting (linked as council housing in the history section). Otherwise, I think it's good to go now.

I'll probably want to make another pass. It's long. It's looking pretty good. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain: Thanks again for this. I have hopefully addressed your concerns with this edit. I shall look forward to any further comments if you give it another read through. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Support now. I've made a few tweaks and I'm happy with the quality. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting and for taking the time to give this a thorough review Laser brain. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ian Rose, Ealdgyth: with three supports following detailed reviews and a completed image review, am I right in thinking that this now needs a source review request? Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and I've added it to the list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! —Noswall59 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Plenty of source here – I'll get through some right now and come back tomorrow for the rest... Aza24 (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Biblio[reply]

  • Link for "Lincolnshire Research Observatory Statistics about Skegness, East Lindsey (Lincoln: Lincolnshire Research Observatory, 2003)." is broken
  • House of Lords Select Committee on Regenerating Seaside Towns and Communities, Written Evidence (London: House of Lords, 2019). is broken as well
  • VisitEngland has a link
  • All books and encyclopedias (not including online encyclopedias) need an ISBN 13. Some, usually ones maybe 60 years or older, may not have one assigned and instead would benefit from an OCLC, which you can find at Worldcat
  • I'll go through the inline refs later Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Wait what does "Phillips (1932)." (ref 20) even refer to? Can't find a phillips in the biblio – missing page number as well if it's a printed source
  • I am unsure what the "2.2.4.4." is supposed to mean in ref 42
  • ref 73 should be 1972, right?
  • ref 111 should have em dash: –
  • ABC missing wiki link
  • That's all I could find. Reliability is good. Aza24 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Thanks for doing this so promptly. I will make the relevant changes sometime today or tomorrow -- it may take a little while to get all the ISBNs in order. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Aza24 Okay, I believe I have now fixed all of the issues through these edits – all printed works have an ISBN or OCLC; the journals have ISSN numbers; the House of Lords link is fixed; the Lincolnshire one may still be broken, but I've added an archive link; I've added archive links to every web-online document in the bibliography as well. All of the citation fixes have also been done (I also swapped out Phillips for a better ref anyway). Thanks a lot for carrying this out – do let me know if I need to do anything else. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your thoroughness – everything looks good now. Pass for source review. Note for FAC coords I did not do thorough spotchecks but I glanced through the links while checking most of them, nothing seemed to be off. Aza24 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Skegness/archive1&oldid=978453423"