Jump to content

Talk:Portsmouth/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! 16:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:


I like Portsmouth. I'll take a look at the article over the next few days and then leave some initial comments. User:SilkTork#Good_Articles - gives my thoughts on the GA process and my typical approach. I always welcome discussion. SilkTork *YES! 16:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • Images. I haven't read the article yet - I've just taken a quick look at the images. A number of them are poor quality, and have poor WP:Captions. A few are not on Commons, and the claim of authorship of the aerial shot from the 60s may be challenged. There are a number of good images on Commons that may be substituted. I have improved the image and caption of Portsmouth Cathedral as an example. The image of Portchester Castle is particularly poor, and this is a shame as there are a number of good quality images to select from here. SilkTork *YES! 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that the comments regarding images have been crossed out, so I thought I'd be able to do a quick check and pass the images. However, I note that the captions are still poor - either too short and unhelpful, or too long. See WP:Captions. The images are appropriately tagged - though File:Gosport 1960s.jpg is still in the article, and while it may well be owned by the person who uploaded it, that it's an aerial shot from the 60s may provoke someone to challenge it. As the article is not short on images, it may be best to err on the side of caution and remove it. There are still some poor quality images in the article - File:Portsmouth Harbour - The Hard and Harbour Station 02-04-04.jpg is fuzzy and unclear, File:HMNBPortsmouth1.jpg is poorly framed so it's unclear what the subject matter is - it appears to be the pier supports, though the caption indicates that it's something else, File:Number One Tower Gunwharf Quays.jpg - poor focus. The reason why some images are included is unclear - though the image of Porchester Castle is much improved, why is there an image of that castle in this article? I note there are a lot of modern photographs, though more historical images are lacking. It's worth doing a search, because old prints, paintings, maps, postcards, etc, will be out of copyright - look here, do an internet search for "Portsmouth prints", and especially for "The encampment of the English forces near Portsmouth 1545" - a famous print. Search for old Portsmouth maps. However, replacing poor quality images is not a GA requirement, and you may want to concentrate on other aspects first. SilkTork *YES! 18:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources. The article has a good number of sources, and I see cites in most places in the article; however, I also see sections which have few or no sources at all. And while I haven't closely examined the sources yet, I do note that despite there being considerable literature on the subject, that the bulk of the sources are not good quality - some being estate agents or other commercial websites. SilkTork *YES! 22:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research. I don't think there would be any OR in the article - however, I tend to flag this until I have checked the sources, so I cannot pass it until I have checked sources and done some background reading. SilkTork *YES! 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broad coverage. There may be an imbalance of coverage in the article. There appear to be short sections on some areas and large on others, and it will take some background reading to decide if the coverage is balanced and appropriate. SilkTork *YES! 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stable. Article is stable. There is fair amount of IP and new user edits that have been reverted, though there are also a good number of positive IP edits, so I don't feel semi-protection is appropriate at the moment. SilkTork *YES! 23:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

This is a high profile and popular article attracting an average of 30,000 readers a month. There is much to applaud in the article - there is a fair degree of material that has been researched and cited and placed in sections within the article, and the article is illustrated with appropriate, if not always good quality, images.

The article does need some further organisation to present the material in a more helpful manner to the reader, and the prose needs tightening. There is an editorial process that the article needs to go through in the selection of material - deciding which information is most important, and which can be reduced. The quality of sourcing needs improving, and there are a number of books on Portsmouth that can be consulted.

The article needs a fair degree of work. The subject matter is quite large, complex, important, popular and high profile. Portsmouth is an important city in the history of the UK, particularly in terms of its role within the Royal Navy.

The article needs either a coordinated effort by a number of editors working together, or one editor to take this on as a project. The prose in particular needs careful attention to ensure a meaningful flow, rather than a series of abrupt and disjointed sentences inserted here and there.

In my experience I feel that the amount of work needed is beyond the scope of a GA review, and that the groundwork needs to be done and the article resubmitted later; however, I know that when motivated people can do a good deal of work in a short space of time, so I will put this on hold for seven days to see what progress can be done. If there are not sufficient signs in seven days time that this article can be made to pass the GA criteria I will close the review. SilkTork *YES! 23:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There have been improvements in the article - I see an attempt being made, and wish to encourage that. Though I still feel that there is a significant amount of work to be done. The Notable residents section, for example, has improved. It is presented in a more readable format, and a fair degree of verification has been done. There is some organisation of the people, though a little more could be done so that the more notable people come first (Dickens and Isambard Kingdom Brunel before Emma Barton for example), and grouping people so that sports people are together in one paragraph and musicians in another, for example. I'll hold this open for another seven days, and then make a decision. SilkTork *YES! 18:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Not listed

[edit]

I think there is a fair amount of work still to be done. I have considered getting stuck in myself to do the work needed, though I feel that there is just too much to do in a reasonable time frame. I'll keep this on my watchlist, and when I get some time I'll help out in developing it toward a GA. SilkTork *YES! 10:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portsmouth/GA1&oldid=1091481058"