Talk:Albert Dock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Albert Dock has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 3, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

Albert Dock at Night[edit]

That picture 'Albert Dock at Night'... isn't that actually looking over the SALTHOUSE dock? :p 81.31.97.129 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Thumbnail label has been clarified. Snowy 1973 (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albert Dock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

This is a well-written and comprehensive history of the Albert Dock. My only concern is that the majority of the in-line citations are based upon the use of a self-published book Amazon listing, by Jones (2004). However, the article, and also the British Library, list the publisher as Ron Jones Associates.

Unfortunately, WP:verify states that self-published sources are not generally acceptable. I don't yet have access to a copy of this book. So the main question, and I don't know the answer, is who is Jones, and what qualifies him to write on this topic? At this point, I need to put the article On Hold until this is resolved. Perhaps the WP:GAN Nominator can shed some light on the matter? Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as it was me who added the information from the Ron Jones book I'll try and explain why I saw this source as viable. Although I'm not definately sure what position Ron Jones actually holds, I know he has written and published books on other Liverpool related subjects such as the Beatles, which makes me think that he is a local author. It is this that may also explain why he publishes his own books rather than going through someone like The Bluecoat Press.
Regarding the issue of verifiability there is an acknowledgement on the copyright page of the book to a Dr Adrian Jarvis, who is the curator of port history at National Museums Liverpool (A quick google search seems to suggest that Mr Jarvis is also affiliated with the University of Liverpool [1]). It states that he made sure the factual content of the book was correct and also names a book he has written on the Albert Dock called Albert Dock: Trade and Technology. Personally I felt that this acknowledgement to someone who can be considered an authority on Liverpool's maritime history made this source reliable, despite the self publication issue. --Daviessimo (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive, wide-ranging article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Yes, BUT see comments below.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well-illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article is certainly GA-class, despite my concerns expressed above about the extensive use of a self-published book. I think in due course it might make WP:FAC, but not without additional sources of references. I am therefore awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Stacks vs Pavillions[edit]

I note that the article refers to 'Pavillion (formally xxx stack)'. Does this mean the formal name of the pavillion is xxx stack - or that it used to be xxx stack, with 'formally' being a mistake for 'formerly'? To my mind, 'formerly' is probably the word intended. If I don't get any argument ot proof to the contrary, I'll change it in a week or two. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Story[edit]

Hello thats not right.

Two years later in 1990 The Beatles Story museum opened, the only Beatles themed visitor attraction in the world, providing yet another draw to the Albert Dock

Have a look [2] and de:Beatles-Museum Halle. Regards --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 14:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point - I changed it to "in Britain". --David Edgar (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Albert Dock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)