Jump to content

Talk:Milford Haven/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *YES! 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Initial comments

[edit]

I'll be reviewing this. I lived in Milford Haven many years ago, and I have fond memories of the place. I've cast my eye quickly over the article, and there appears to be plenty of material and cites, so this is very promising. Points that jumped out at me are that the lead looks rather short for an article of this length - take a look at WP:Lead; that the structure needs attention - look at WP:LAYOUT and WP:UKCITIES; that there are a lot of images - see Wikipedia:Layout#Images; that there are a lot of sections - some of which have only one sentence, and sub-sections that could be useful merged together; and that there is an inclination toward lists rather than prose - see WP:Embedded lists. These are all aspects which are covered in the GA criteria - Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I'll put up a list later. Any questions, please let me know. SilkTork *YES! 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit list

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    Lists need to be turned into prose, and the lead needs expanding
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    There are references and a reference section
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Some statements are unsourced
    C. No original research:
    Without being able to check reliable sources some statements may be OR
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Needs a governance section at least
    B. Focused:
    History section may need breaking out in WP:Summary style to a standalone article, leaving behind a decent summary
  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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Further comments

[edit]

I've just been doing some basic organising and tidying up. I'm OK doing it as we all share a common aim of improving this article (regardless of if it gets a GA status, the article will be improved by the process), however there has been a fair bit to do, and a lot of this basic stuff should be done before nominating an article for GA. I've just sorted out a series of petty spelling mistakes/typos - this is basic stuff that can be easily checked with online spell-checkers. I'm going to pause on doing the tidying up for the moment. There is enough work for people to get on with - expand the governance section, convert the list sections into prose, and find references for any sections or paragraphs or contentious statements that don't have inline citations. I'll do the hit-list in a moment. SilkTork *YES! 12:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On hold

[edit]

Putting on hold for seven days to allow development:

  • Copy editing is the work of improving the formatting, style, and accuracy of a manuscript. A copy editor may abridge a text, by "cutting" and "trimming" it, to reduce its length or to improve its meaning. It's not unusual, for example, for doctoral candidates to get their PhD thesis copy edited before submitting it.--Kudpung (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#History has some guidance on this issue. I don't think that it's a clear and obvious case for a split, and in general I am in favour of keeping as much information on one topic in one place, however the history section is 20k of a 56k article - it is over a third of the content. And at 56K the article is already at a size where some browsers are having difficulty loading, and recommendation in Wikipedia:Article_size is leaning toward a split. A reader looking for a quick summary of the history of Milford Haven has to read nearly 3,000 words - which would take the average reader 15 - 20 minutes with only 60% comprehension, so further readings would need to take place. An overview of the history would be what most readers would want, with a link to a more detailed history for extra depth. As I say, this is not an obvious, obvious split, but I think it tips over the borderline into a sensible idea. If you'd like me to do it, let me know. SilkTork *YES! 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a History of Milford Haven needs to be created. I've had a look around, and in every case I looked at when a history is this long, it is broken out into a sub-article. Take a look at the articles on this list: Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places. Unless there is an objection, I will create the new article and write up the summary to be left in this article. SilkTork *YES! 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it will not damage the articles chance at achieving GA status, then I see no objections. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at streamlining the The 20th century section. It's possible that there is still too much historcal 'tittle-tattle' left in it. Less is often more and it won't harm the GA status. Some articles of only two or three paragraphs such as one on a motorway services station have made it to GA. When stuff is cut, nothing is ever irretrievably lost and it can always be put back in.--Kudpung (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what Silktork has planned before we decide to undue good faith edits. Removing large chunks without discussion aids no one. Reverting 'pruning' until a consensus has been reached. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Good faith edits. See the discussion on the talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will slightly improve the chance of retaining GA status as there would be a possibility someone could challenge it under the "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" criteria. I'll do it now. SilkTork *YES! 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List sections

[edit]

The Notable people section is excellent! That's very good work. Religion is also very good - it puts religion into context within the community. I like that. There are, however, a lot of images - see Wikipedia:Layout#Images and WP:IG. Unless the article is going to discuss the architecture of the churches, then the images are mainly decorative, so a gallery is not appropriate. I'd suggest selecting one and removing the others. Education still needs doing. SilkTork *YES! 12:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's some excellent work being done on this article. SilkTork *YES! 12:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • Any sections or statements that could be challenged to be sourced.

While much of the article is well researched with good referencing, there are still statements that need sourcing, such as the second half of Etymology, and "The Second World War altered the rhythm of the town considerably", "The only man-made structures on the future site of Milford were the medieval chapel, and Summer Hill Farm, and its accompanying cottages", and "Into the new millennium, its fortunes seem to have risen, as can be witnessed in the activity surrounding the impending LNG terminal, and all the new building works which accompany it and its connection to the controversial South Wales Gas Pipeline." This is not an exhaustive list, just examples. SilkTork *YES! 13:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Clean up references: Every reference needs checking to ensure that it is reliable at the time of the GA review. There needs to be some consistency in the way the references are displayed, in particular the 'Retrieved' dates, should be either American or English but not a mixture of the two, and as this is a British article about a place in Britain, probably the British format would be more apt. The quickest way to achieve consistency may be to use a citation template. I am inclined to disbelieve that 236th October 1889 had 236 days! --Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro will need more references, even if the items might be mentioned and sourced in later sections (WP:LEAD). the same references, if relevant, can be used again.--Kudpung (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input Kudpung, some useful comments there. Checking "every" reference is not something that all GA reviewers do. Some articles I have reviewed have had 500 or more references, many of which may be documents in difficult to access libraries. I do tend to check out the major reference sources - buying a book if needed, and I will check that some statements are accurately supported by the references. I have failed nominations on the basis that the statements I checked were not supported by the sources. But it is by the nature of what we do, only a selective sampling.
GA criteria does not require that the cites are presented in a particular way - that is a FA requirement. As long as there is a reference, it can be a bare url. Of course, any improvement is welcomed, but we need to differentiate between what is required for GA, and what is a general improvement. I do try to indicate when I am doing a review which of my observations are general recommendations, and which are my interpretations of the GA criteria.
As citing in the lead section is often misunderstood, it is worth reading the guideline on that - WP:LEADCITE. A number of editors feel that the Lead does not need citing if the statements are in the main body - though if the statement is quite contentious and likely to make a reader doubt the truth, then as WP:LEADCITE advises, it would make sense to cite the lead as well as the main body. SilkTork *YES! 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do reviewers now often check every ref, but they often insist on the format in which it is presented, and often the template to be used. Bare URLs are definitely not recommended at GA level. Plenty of examples from recent GA reviews. If the lack of refs in the lead is contested, it should be subject to a consensus. Nevermind, i'll let you get on with it. Good luck.--Kudpung (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. Having had to consider how and whether to respond to a spurious claim on lead citations (the claim itself being more reactionary than considered), I am pleased to see the underlying logic of WP:LEADCITE is not dissimilar to my own conclusions. One could probably come up with heuristics on this sort of thing. For example.

  • If the subject is not a living person,
  • and if the lead is a succinct synopsis of information elaborated on and cited within the body of the article,
  • and if the lead contains uncontentious material,
  • and if there is no other gain from placing a citation within the lead,
  • then there is no purpose to do so,
  • else if one or more of the above reasons exist to cite within the lead, do so.

A flowchart could be derived from such a heuristic. One could expand the heuristic, but it's probably as brief as one could get it and still have it cover all bases. One could not exhaustively list all possibilities, so the "no other gain" statement or a variation of it (which unpacks to cover anything not thought of or foreseen - a version of the ubiquitous "other" category in heuristics and taxonomies etc). Wotnow (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checking & verifying : There is a tool for checking the connectivity of links and automatically reporting dead ones. This tool has been run for all the links on the Milford Haven page, so it would be unwise to change any URLs at this stage. Some URLs have typos in them that are typos in the URL itself. Changing it will make a dead link. This may help to demonstrate the importance of checking every link manually - the tool does not tell us if the information is really on the linked page.--Kudpung (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my goof. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are more dead links and links with non-matching content. But in the light of your recent comments, it's probably quicker and easier if you find them yourself.--Kudpung (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McKay - Many of the claims in this article use McKay. However, the way in which this source is presented could be considered rather vague and can't be verified online. See: WP:CITE. In this particualr instance, as one of the contributors obviously has the book, it might be better, and look more professional, to use the correct format or a citation template, (or even Harvard style citations) that provides:
  • Author (first names, last names)
  • Title
  • Publisher
  • Date of publication
  • Page number
  • Line number (if appropriate)
  • location
  • ISBN
One such template that can be used for book sources is this one:
{{cite book
 | last1 =
 | first1 = 
 | last2 =
 | first2 =
 | title = 
 | publisher = 
 | date = 
 | location = 
 | isbn = 
}}
If consensus agrees on this, I'll do it for you, but I'll need the page numbers.--Kudpung (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stack Rock Fort / Landmarks section

[edit]

I noticed that the Landmarks section is quite small, so I have browsed in Category:Milford Haven. I found Stack Rock Fort and Palmerston Forts, Milford Haven . There is a small mention of these in the Landmarks section, though I feel that could be developed a bit more, and something about them placed in the history section. SilkTork *YES! 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

[edit]

Very good! The last bits need a cite though. SilkTork *YES! 13:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I'm not an expert on the copyright issues related to images, but I do check each one to see if there is a viable fair use tag on each one. I changed one tag to something more appropriate. I am uncertain about File:Milford Harbour.jpg, and File:Milford Haven 'Where Fish Comes From'.jpg. There's no source given for File:Milford aerial 2.jpg and File:Milford aerial 2.jpg. Those four need to either be removed, or to have sources and/or more convincing copyright tags. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. SilkTork *YES! 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated copyright status, but am confused over your comments on File:Milford Haven 'Where Fish Comes From'.jpg. My original copyright description seemed OK - could use some clarification. Alvear24 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is of a poster advertising Great Western Railway, a company which is not mentioned in the article. The copyright tag says that posters may be used: "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". I note that the rationale is that the image is "Used here to illustrate nature of fishing industry in Milford Haven in a contemporary setting." But I am not convinced that mentioning Milford Haven on the poster is enough. You could ask Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for clarity. As I say, I'm not an expert on copyright tags, so I tend to be a little cautious because there are serious implications if we get it wrong. SilkTork *YES! 19:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point I have boosted the railway section to mention the GWR and the connections with the town. I hope that gives the poster some more weight. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the link to the website which has the image File:Milford aerial 1.jpg- I found the image here, but I couldn't see any information regards date or author. The collection is pre-1940, so I wondered if {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} is a more appropriate tag? SilkTork *YES! 19:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Alvear, regarding Milford_Header.jpg, and Milford Architecture.jpg - are the actual elements of these compilations your own work too? --Kudpung

The majority yes, although some are borrowed from other liscenced Wiki users Alvear24 (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Regardin Milford Harbour.jpg - no copyright information, i.e. template of one kind or another from the list of available Licensing solutions is shown. AFIK, one is generally required.--Kudpung (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate chart

[edit]

It's not really a GA requirement - however I notice that the climate chart intrudes in a messy manner on the layout of the article. I had a look, and I couldn't find any Good Articles which used the climate chart. If Good Articles had such a chart, they tended to use a weatherbox. As I say, not a GA requirement, but a comment on what the most respected articles appear to use. SilkTork *YES! 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

The scope of the lead section may need possible expansion relative to the length of the article and its contents. (WP:LEAD) --Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good work on the lead FruitMonkey. As I'm looking more into this article I feel there will be some changes to the main body which will have an impact on the lead, so I think we'll look again at the lead at the end. SilkTork *YES! 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true Kudpung. However, there will be some changes made to this article as it develops, and this will impact on the Lead. Some material may be removed, and some material added to the body, and so the Lead will need adjusting accordingly. It is acceptable and helpful to work on the Lead as we are working on the body, though, because we know at this point that the Lead is likely to be somewhat different at the end of the review to what it is now, I will not be commenting that the Lead needs work until we get to the end, otherwise it will be a constant statement: "The Lead needs attention". I hope at this stage that everyone involved in this review is aware of this situation, and there will be no more need to comment on the Lead until we are ready. SilkTork *YES! 09:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

There are three articles in the See also section. Per WP:See also it might be appropriate to incorporate mention of these articles within the main body, and link to them when mentioned. What is the relationship between Milford Haven and Milford Haven (harbour)? Why are there two articles? (I'm not saying there shouldn't be - just wondering the rationale, as it is not clear at the moment.) SilkTork *YES! 12:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm working on the History now, and I see what has happened. The inlet is called Milford Haven, and the town was named after the inlet. The Early history that I am now reading is actually about the inlet, not about the town. I am going to need to rethink this. Two reliable sources I have just read to start writing the summary, state that the town of Milford Haven was founded in 1793. I think it's appropriate to give some detail about the location where the town was founded, but if we are to have two articles, one on the inlet, and one on the town, then we don't need to give a full and detailed early history of the inlet twice. I'm going to undo my last edit, and have a rethink on the best approach to take. SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

[edit]

Fish Week and the carnival are the kind of local information found in a town guide. These inclusions might not strictly be of encyclopedic value.--Kudpung (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are saying, though such information is often found in place articles. It depends on the size of the place, and the importance of the local event/carnival to that place. I'm easy. The information is sourced and doesn't take up much room, so I have no objection to it staying. SilkTork *YES! 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Welsh language / Demographics

[edit]

What is the story here? There was an objection which wasn't upheld? Looks like a sentence at the most, and even then that is questionable. Any one able to explain why it has a section to itself? SilkTork *YES! 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to give it some context, by running it into the Welsh language opening and using it as an example. It probably is still too much weight within the section, though I do remember it making the national news for a few days when the story broke. I await others' comments. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new section heading is an improvement. I think you're right that it can be reduced further. The Demographics section as a whole at the moment is not very broad and needs expansion, the only information selected from sources is that the population are mostly white and English speaking. The main source for the information, statistics.gov.uk, only gives stats by electoral wards - so the stats are only from one ward in Milford Haven - the central one, yet are presented in the article as though this covers the whole of Milford Haven. It is better to say nothing at all, than to give incorrect information. People rely on Wikipedia, and it is not uncommon for incorrect information to be copied and repeated until it becomes so widespread it seems authoritative. I'll see if there is information available on the demographics of Milford Haven as a whole. If nobody can find a decent source and build the Demographics information before this review ends, then the section would need to be removed as unreliable. SilkTork *YES! 09:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad, I see that it does say that the stats are for the central ward. SilkTork *YES! 09:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I corrected it a couple of hours ago! --Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

When citing sources, it probably more prudent to report them accurately (s: numbers of employees, M & F.) rather than loosely interpreting the facts for a more prosaic style. Fishery was not 'by far' the largest employer in MH in 1921 - Tpt & Comm was a very close second. Anyone checking the facts in such sources (and people do) might lose confidence in the encyclopedia as reliable document. The corrections have been effected - revert if you wish.--Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reporting exact figures is what we like. Editors' interpretation of any sort is not liked. There is already an editorial decision being made in the selection and organisation of facts, which can bias an article despite the best efforts of the editors to be neutral. Indeed, there is an awareness that our very choice of subject matter is biased - Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We must strive at all times to present the facts, and allow the readers to make up their own minds. SilkTork *YES! 08:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

[edit]

As with the reporting of the employment statistics (see Economy above), the architecture section should preferably strive to report the facts as shown in the source material and try to avoid introducing peacock terms to embelish the prose.
The quoted source Archeology.org does not appear to mention Georgian buildings in the Historic Background section. The section Description and essential historic landscape components however, discusses buildings "mainly in the Georgian style" but does not appear to refer to their architectural excellence. However, there was too much to read and I may have missed it. I have flagged the place in the text. It should be addressed before the tag is removed.--Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

The BBC only gives half the explanation. It does not adequately explain Haven, which of course is none other than the German word for port; also related to the French havre. I would have thought it worth a mention. Plenty of references exist.
The gleddau part of the Welsh name might come from the confluence of two rivulets, the Cleddau Fawr and the Cleddau Fach, where in Welsh cleddau , If I remember rightly, can mean sword. (I may be wrong on this because I haven't looked it up, and my childhood Welsh is is now very rusty) I would have thought it worth a mention. Not sure about references.--Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]

Added destination to compass with major destination in bold. This was one edit, revert if not wanted.--Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[edit]

It may be an idea at this stage to go through all the embedded comments that are accumulating in the various sections above and add the  Done template to them when they have been addressed. --Kudpung (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome Kudpung's advice, and appreciate the enthusiasm, as I, along with other GA reviewers, welcome and encourage people to comment on an article under review - supporting suggestions made by the reviewer, or pointing out aspects of the article that the reviewer may not have noticed. We welcome people to get involved in working on the article to bring it to GA standard. We also welcome comments on the review process where appropriate. However, because it can get confusing if there is more than one person giving advice on how to conduct the review and bring the article to GA standard, the actual running of the review, and the decisions made on the outcome, are best left to one person. The GA process is such that if a person does not approve of the outcome, the decision can be examined, or the article put through another review. The aim throughout is to make the process as clear and easy as possible, and for inappropriate decisions to be quickly and easily overturned.
It may be helpful to explain my thinking behind doing a GA review:
  • The first aim is to check that an article meets GA criteria
  • The second aim is to improve the article - for it to reach GA level, and to be improved in general
  • The third aim is for the GA review to be a beneficial experience for those involved - if nominators and significant contributors are motivated by the process they are more likely to improve other articles to GA status, and if they can see what needs to be done to bring an article to GA status, it makes the next GA review easier for all concerned.
Each review is different and brings its own problems to overcome. Some reviews can be fairly quick, others take a long time. When reviews start to take a while, either because there is a fair amount of work to be done, or because the way forward is not clear, some tension and conflict may arise. At such times it is even more important that the guidance during the review is simple and precise, and that - unless the reviewer is totally lost - the guidance come only from one person - the reviewer. The reviewer doesn't know everything, but the reviewer should be allowed to lead discussion to find solutions, and direct the review for the benefit of all - too much conflicting advice without someone to take charge can make things messy and frustrating. I would be quite happy to assist Kudpung in conducting his own GA review, and that is something we can talk about away from this review. In the meantime I would appreciate if Kudpung restricted his comments to the article and not to the review process. SilkTork *YES! 10:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stage two

[edit]

People have done very well so far, and I've been impressed by both the quality and the amount of work done. We are now looking at a different stage in the process. The name "Milford Haven" covers both the inlet and the town. There is an article on the inlet - Milford Haven (harbour), and an article - this one - which appears undecided if it is about the town or about both the town and the inlet. I think there are two ways to proceed:

Some reorganisation would need to be done depending on the decision, as it impacts on various aspects of both articles - the history section, for example, would need to be clarified as it carries both the history of the inlet and the history of the town, and the notable people section has at least one person who lived before the town existed.

It should also be decided as which term for the inlet is most common - a Google search indicates that "Milford Haven Waterway" has 150,000 hits, harbour has 89,600 and inlet only 874. As such I suggest that "Milford Haven Waterway" is used. See WP:COMMONNAME.

I will be guided by the advice of those who know more of the topic, though my inclination is to favour renaming Milford Haven (harbour) to Milford Haven Waterway, focusing Milford Haven on the town, and creating a section in Milford Haven on Milford Haven Waterway which links to that article. The history section could then be approached differently, giving a very brief mention of the history of the waterway before going into the history of the town itself. I would also advocate keeping the History of Milford Haven article, but again, modifying it to take into account the circumstances. The bulk of the Early history section would be moved into the Milford Haven (harbour) / Milford Haven Waterway article.

Review of the article is on hold until the decision is made, and will start again from scratch when the amendments have been done according to which decision is made. SilkTork *YES! 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that FruitMonkey pointed out, on the Milford Haven talk page, that there are separate articles on the town and the waterway in the Encyclopedia of Wales. This is the approach I favour. The waterway article should focus on physical geography, natural history and the wider maritime economy beyond the town of the same name.--Pondle (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Milford Haven Waterway, as that appears to be the more common usage. The question I feel is that as much of the history of the area was before the town was built (though the area of Milford existed before the town) where do we split the histroic events around the area. Or do we mention certain events in both, just to a minor extent in one? FruitMonkey (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practise to give some history of the location of a settlement, so a brief general history on the area would be appropriate in Milford Haven, with a more detailed history in Milford Haven Waterway. The Waterway article to mention the town and to give a summary in a section Milford Haven Waterway#Milford Haven town, with a link to the Milford Haven article. I'll set that up for you to look at. SilkTork *YES! 00:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review 2

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  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:
    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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

OK, we are drawing to a close - I feel that the structure, coverage and layout of the article are within GA criteria, and the images are all compliant.

I would ask that the nominator and interested editors to now go carefully through the article and ensure that any statements and sections that can be questioned are sourced. If a reliable source cannot be found, then please remove the statement. Examples of statements that a reader might question are "private housing estates became more popular", "predominately used English for many centuries" (links to sourced articles are not enough - the sources for contentious statements need to be in each article where the statement occurs), "Milford Haven is twinned as a twin-town with Romilly-sur-Seine, France and Uman, Ukraine", "Primary and pre school education in Milford Haven is served by six state infant and primary schools", "The earliest known religious building in the area was the Benedictine priory which was dissolved during Henry VIII's reign", "The current bridge is actually the third version", and "The marina is gradually acquiring a commercial presence." This is not an exhaustive list, but just some examples.

Also check the prose for clarity - examples of unclear writing are "Notable examples are Shakespeare Avenue and Starbuck Road" (Notable examples of what? And why are they notable? And where is the reliable source for the statement?); and "Up until the mid 1960s, tourism in the town had been played down" (what does the phrase "played down" mean? avoid casual language). Check that the prose flows in a readable manner. Avoid one sentence paragraphs if possible, and link short sentences together. The Sport and leisure section contains too many short sentences. Check punctuation. Single inverted commas (') should be changed to double (") - see WP:PUNCT.

Ensure that cites are placed after punctuation marks, and that unless the material is particularly contentious, it comes at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle. Plurals don't have a possessive apostrophe - so when writing about decades, it's 1960s, not 1960's, etc.

When that is done, read through the whole article and ensure that the lead is an accurate summary of the important information. The lead should be able to stand on its own - many readers will only look at the lead, and so it must give them a neat summary of the article.

I'll put this on hold for a week to allow the work to be done. If you have finished before then, please give me a ping. When I come back I'll check some of the reference sources to make sure that they are reliable, and that they do support what is said in the article. If all is OK, I'll pass as a Good Article. Good luck! SilkTork *YES! 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just popped in to look at progress. It's looking good, though I've noticed there's an uncertainty about the neighbouring settlements. Could someone find out what the relationship is of Hakin, etc, to Milford Haven, and make a clear statement, supported by a ref. When it is decided if they are within Milford Haven or not, then the Geographic Location template can be adjusted. The intention of that template is to identify the adjoining communities. If Hakin is part of the Milford Haven community, then it is potentially confusing to list it as the next community. And showing far away communities like Swansea, Cardiff and London is not helpful. See Template:Geographic location/doc. SilkTork *YES! 11:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The local government community of Milford Haven includes the Hakin and Hubberston wards (see the Milford PDF here). However, I'm not sure of the boundaries of the Milford Haven urban area, the statistical entity defined by ONS. The map on the Key Stats for Urban Areas doc isn't very detailed[1]. I'll see if I can find something better on NOMIS.--Pondle (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, found the map on NOMIS; annoyingly, I can't link to it directly. The urban area includes Hubberston and Steynton, but not Liddeston or Thornton.--Pondle (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look over the weekend to see what still needs to be done. The lead could be built up. A summary of the main history points, and some sense of the economy and the community which are described in the article would be useful. SilkTork *YES! 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A similar problem was encountered when attempting to define the boundaries of Malvern, Worcestershire. At the lowest level of local government, MH is probably a case of Civil parishes in England, but might call itself a Town Council. A large civil parish may well be divided up into wards. Some town areas or suburbs may also be minor CPs in their own right, and the district authority may have its own wards that overlap those boundaries of the local parishes and/or their wards. It's all very confusing because the councils' and the ONS maps are often not synchronised and are out of date or provide conflicting ionfo. This arises due to the boundaries for the reporting of the 2001 census, and subsequent boundary changes and/or creation of new CPs during the following decade. The Malvern issue was finally resolved when a Wikipedia editor solicited a personal meeting with the Malvern's town clerk.--Kudpung (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased to see people are still working on this and making progress. I'll pop back in a couple of days for a closer look. SilkTork *YES! 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I wanted to come here and make a decision, and I see that the question of the border has not quite been settled. That inclines me toward a fail. But all communities these days are fairly vague, and some areas that have Good Articles have disputes about the exact boundaries. All we need are some reliable sources that give some information about the boundary, and leave out making definitive statements about places which are uncertain - such as Thornton. I am going to make a decision this evening, but I want to give this article a good chance first. SilkTork *YES! 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that we can not find proof of Thornton being part of Milford Haven because it is not. I have found multiple non-notable websites discussing upper Thornton and Thorton as "outside Milford Haven" and "near Milford Haven". The only Thorntonesque references is Thornton Hall, which is in Seyton and not in Thornton. Welsh communities are fairly new constructs and Thornton seems to have fallen under the auspices of Milford Haven as it is the closest large settlement. It's just difficult to find non-proof. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An example of non-notable mentions include a local newspaper report from 1989 which states 'Mr. Anthony James, of Thornton, near Milford Haven'. I've got more of these, but not much stronger. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, this is better. BBC 2008, same type of mention. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at NOMIS (select Census 2001 data, Census Area Statistics, then use either the wizard or advanced query, select urban areas and click on the map) then you'll see that Thornton definitely isn't part of the Milford urban area. The map here (download the PDF) reveals that it isn't part of the local government community area either.--Pondle (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems correct Pondle, though parts of Lower Thornton may be part of Milford: North Ward. I think the upshot is, that Thornton is not part of Milfird Haven. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the map I think Thornton Industrial Estate is part of the North ward (reflected in its Milford postal address?)[2] but the residential area of Thornton is to the west of the North ward boundary.Pondle (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then lets remove it, and be done with it. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a cite link to that NOMIS map as an indication of the boundary. It was interesting looking at that map, as the last place I lived in Milford was with a gypsy called Fairy in the place marked Priory, and I recall walking down the footpath shown alongside Hubberston Pil to go to work in the cold storage on the dock. Is the cold storage still there? SilkTork *YES! 11:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

[edit]

At last! Well done to everyone involved. SilkTork *YES! 13:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milford_Haven/GA1&oldid=1091479374"