Wikipedia:Peer review/List of civil parishes in Somerset/archive1

List of civil parishes in Somerset

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it is nearly ready for nomination as a Featured List. There are a few entries without images as I can't find any appropriately licenced ones. It is also very long and I would appreciate guidance about whether either of these would be likely to fail FL? Any other comments are also welcome. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 16:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - if you run checklinks you will currently find lots of 403 Forbidden see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Somerset#Links_to_Somerset_County_Council_web_pages for details.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the Internet Archive? Or WebCite? Assuming the information is printed as well as online, a cite to the print version would also be OK (and I assume this would also be available in local libraries or perhaps government offices). Review to follow shortly... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webcite seems to have done the trick.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is generally well done, though there is a lot of detail work that needs to be done before this would pass WP:FLC, mostly realtively easy to fix WP:MOS issues. With FLC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

To address the three points raised above, I do not think that a few missing images would be any reason for this to not pass at FLC. I am not as sure about its length, but if that does become an issue, I think that it would be fairly easy to split the article into several shorter articles, probably based on geography in some way.

Thanks

The references are a bit more worrisome, but as I mentioned above, it may be that they are archived on the web somewhere (in which case you can just link to the archived version). Actually I just checked one link and it is on the Internet Archive here
Assuming they were printed as well as published online (and I assume in 1991 that they were), a cite to the print version would suffice. So bottom line is, I think this problem can be fixed. On to the rest of the article.

Internet archive gave me all sorts of grief but webcite has found the population data.

There are a lot of phrases and links in italics - I doubt that they all meet WP:ITALIC and even if they do, there are inconsistencies - for example in the lead Local Government Act 1894" is not italicized but "Local Government Act 1972" is italicized. They should either be both italicized, or neither should be.

Done

Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix things like The South Somerset district is the largest and covers and area of 370 square miles (958 km2)[5] ranging from the borders with Devon and Dorset to the edge of the Somerset Levels.

Done your example but some of the others have 2 sets of population figures in a sentance & therefore I have left the ref with each number.

There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs in the History and Current position sections - to improve the article's flow, these should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.

Done

Where one reference is used for every entry in a table, I would try to use it just once. This could be in the header for that column of the table, or perhaps as a ref for an introductory sentence. See ref [2] in the Bath and North East Somerset section, for example - since this is used for population, it could be added as a ref for the header on population.

Done

Looking at the this ref, it does not have enough information - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Done

Many such tables will have a comments section - I looked at one or two parish links like Ashwick and the article mentioned that more than one village was in the parish - could information like this be included here?

I've not done this as the list is of civil parishes rather than villages (see List of places in Somerset for these)

I would have someone copyedit this - the prose is OK, but the commas especially seemed to need some work.

I will ask an expert to look at my abuse of commas

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments, when I have some time I will also try to contribute something to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - I also noticed that the order of units is inconistent in the lead - sometimes it is English units first (sq miles), other times it is metric first (sq km). Since the UK uses metric as the official units, it should probably be metric first every time. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks done— Rod ^talk 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]