Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Navenby/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted 23:41, 8 March 2008.

[edit]
Check external links
  • Comment: I would like to withdraw my self-nomination of this article. It is obvious I have a lot of work to do on it, so I'll go and nurture it some more before taking it through a peer review at some point. (The images are fine I think, but I've probably made a mess of the licensing aspect - something else I'd better check up on!) I just want to say thankyou for all your suggestions. Could someone remove this for me, because I'm not sure if it is against regulations to do so? I have, however, removed the FA template off the Navenby talkpage. --Seahamlass (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Please see WP:FAC/ar and wait for GimmeBot to update the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nominated. I have worked extremely hard on this article over the past few months. I created it from scratch, as there was nothing on Navenby in Wikipedia before this, and have learned many, many Wiki processes - from designing graphs to working with figures - along the way. Several editors, including Rodw, Jza84, Simply south and Keith D have helped enormously with practical suggestions for referencing etc and it would be a huge honour both for me, and Navenby, to get FA status. Thanks! Seahamlass 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Re: Comment: Hi MOJSKA, just fixed the "further reading" and "bibliography" section. Thanks for the tip!--Seahamlass 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)
Further reading and bibliography are not the same thing, a bibliography is a list of the books used in writing the article, further reading lists books that are relevant and may be of interest but are not actually referenced in the article. As such, the bibliography section contains a book that hasn’t been referenced (Burgess, Neil. Lincolnshire's Lost Railways. Stenlake Publishing. ISBN 9781840334074) this should either be removed or put into a new Further reading section. I however agree with Mojska that a gallery would be useful since there are perhaps a few too many images in the main body of the text, for instance I don’t think WP:IMAGE likes text being sandwiched between two images. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Galleries were to be avoided. I'm sure there is guidance on that somewhere? -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Well written, the references all check out fine too. --Slicedpineapple (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since Navenby has been nominated here, will Seahamlass remove it from WP:GAN? Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC}
  • Re Nev1 comment. Done.--Seahamlass (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There are alot of concerns for me here. I think the article would've benefitted from going through the formal peer review and good article process first to iron out most of the issues. My concerns, mostly WP:MOS related, are:
    • Lots of grammatical redundancy here. There are too many instances of "also", "some", "many", "several", "has"; word that can be omitted without losing meaning within sentences.
    • Inconsistent use of dates. There are instances of stand-alone years linked in the article.
    • Notable people is stubby and includes people of dubious or unclear notability (see WP:NOTABILITY).
    • I'm still very concerned about the copyright of some of the images. Can you (User:Seahamlass) explain how and why you've released Image:Patpicfen.jpg to a Creative Commons licence? Simillarly, you've released Image:Kingheadnavenby.jpg to a CC licence despite the author being explicit he/she does not want it on non-commercial licence (see comment number 12). I'm not sure the rationale on Image:Mrssmith1.JPG is permitted too, though I could be wrong.
    • In Public services there are external links mid-prose.
    • There are lots of stubby, listy sections with single sentence paragraphs. Things like "Navenby offers a range of activities for villagers of all ages" is "estate agent" talk.
    • Lots of the images have thick black borders around them. Can these be cleaned up?
    • Linguistics is a fork of the material at Lincolnshire. The source being used does not mention Navenby specifically.
    • "The street names of Navenby often hark back to the past, and give a good indication of historic places, uses and even problems in the village" has some weasel words and the claim is not supported by the reference.
    • Reference 48 is not entitled "Navenby dialect" nor does it include any material on it.
    • "Although house prices have traditionally been low in Navenby, they have been rising quickly in recent years" - needs a copyedit. "Traditional" and "recent" need defining much more tightly.
  • There are other issues, but that's it from me for now. Clearly a much loved article, but quite some way off from FA upon scrutinisation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. Needs a proper massage—a few hours' worth. For example, just in the lead I see "covers over 2,100 acres (8.5 km²)"—>more than. "long distance footpath" requires a (piped) hyphen to correct its absence in the title of the destination; but why not remove the epithet altogether, since 237 km is hardly short? First "however" is illogical. MOS breach in hyphen used as an interrupter; "such as" is nicer than "like" in formal registers. "Names ending with 'by' meant homestead or village, and were often the earliest Viking settlements." So often they were, and less often they weren't Viking? Lots to do ... Tony (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to withdraw my self-nomination of this article. It is obvious I have a lot of work to do on it, so I'll go and nurture it some more before taking it through a peer review at some point. (The images are fine I think, but I've probably made a mess of the licensing aspect - something else I'd better check up on!) I just want to say thankyou for all your suggestions. Could someone remove this for me, because I'm not sure if it is against regulations to do so? I have, however, removed the FA template off the Navenby talkpage. --Seahamlass (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment (2) - the article's structure's good, but the section internal links must be before the section external links and the sections economy and sport aren't part of the culture of a town, so they must be indipendent sections; there are, in the section culture & subsections, much bolds: the title's only must be bold. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)*: Done[reply]
  • Response to Jza84: Re: **"The street names of Navenby often hark back to the past, and give a good indication of historic places, uses and even problems in the village" has some weasel words and the claim is not supported by the reference." Well, weasel words aside, the so-called "claim" is backed up by the reference. If you click on the reference, it brings up a map of Navenby's roads. Click on the Clint Lane one and it tells you what and why that used to be called. The same if you click Gas Lane etc. As to some of your other suggestions... well I've taken out the linguistics and notable people, cut down the number of pictures etc - and I have WRITTEN permission to use every photo on that page from every photographer/group involved. --Seahamlass (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2008 (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/Navenby/archive1&oldid=1078803780"