I am nominating this for featured article because I have spent a number of months working on it, and I feel it now meets the criteria, and so I am making it my first nomination. Fintan264 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments from Maralia - In general, this looks well done. Some quick notes, mostly on the citations:
Htm[l] is the presumed format for external links, and should not be indicated in format= parameters for references.
Publishers that are websites should not be listed in italics, nor should they be externally linked. Additionally, it makes little sense to list the website and publisher and link both, as you have done (for example) in the first two references. The name/location of the website is less important than the name of the publisher, and should be readily apparent from the actual url link anyway.
The accessdates for all references seem to be in ISO date format - please make them dmy format like the rest of the dates in the article.
There is one title in the references that is in all caps; please reduce to sentence case.
The footnotes section should be located before the notes section, as it is more closely related to the text than are the citations.
I see some hyphens in date ranges (for example, in the infobox); these should be endashes instead.
There is one link that needs disambiguation (Toadflax).
I'll try to get back to read the article in full—just wanted to give some quick feedback so you'd have time to work on these minor issues. Maralia (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Right fixed all of these now, I think, apart from the title in all caps, which I can't find. Fintan264 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I found it, I fixed it, and I have more to say on a related matter below. Morenoodles (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have sorted out the authors sections in the references, and attempted to correct the images, but I'm not entirely sure if I have done what I should have there. Fintan264 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No, there's rather too much to like. Here's a typical example, within the account of the phased demolition: Next was its bunker bay building, which was supposed to be demolished at 2 pm on 15 June 1997, but was delayed until 2 pm on 22 June because of technical difficulties. Sorry, but I don't see how saying more than Next was its bunker bay building, demolished in June 1997 is more than mere demolitioncruft. Yes, the exact date(s) may conceivably have particular significance, but none is shown. struck out Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Descriptions of the new "developments" in places look suspiciously close to developerspeak. Are the descriptions from independent sources? struck out Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Much of the rest is sourced to what smell like precise pages within websites, but have general (site-level) URLs. Are these the closest URLs? (I didn't look.) struck out Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Small point, but capitalization of titles of sources is all over the place. Let's not get into details here, but they should all be "up" style (The Selfish Gene) or "down" style (The selfish gene); as it is, I fear they adopt whatever the source happened to use. struck out Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to wax negative; I do find a description of power stations refreshing and very much hope that I'll soon !vote "promote". Morenoodles (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing there to be a lot to like, and thank you in general for the long hard trimming you just gave it.
Yes, I know what you mean about the demolition section, there were so many sources for different bits that it just gives a sentence overview of each of the sources on each of the stages. I'm uncertain on what I should do. Do you think I should just cut it down to the date and what was done (whilst maintaining prose of course)? You seem to suggest this is done elsewhere in the article. If you point out where I will try my best to rectify the problem. Difficulty is I've spent so long writing it that I can't pick out the bits that are wrong anymore.
Come to mention it, a large bulk of the section on the redevelopment of the south site is taken from the Barrat Developments website. I'm not a great writer however, so I'm not sure how best to get rid of these whiffs of developerspeak.
I'm sure I always used the URL of the page with the information on. I've used the "work" section of the referencing template a lot, so this link is listed alongside the link to the actual page of reference... if that is what you mean, I'm unsure.
Sounds easy enough, I'll run through it in a bit and shift them to "down" style.
Thank you for that warm response to my rather chilly comments. I'm about to do some work on the article, but it's unlikely that I'll finish this in one go. Morenoodles (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've done the first part of a second run-through. I'll try to continue by the end of this week. Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I sleepily misunderstood the citation templates earlier, or anyway I don't know why I was moaning about imprecise URLs. Please disregard that. Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I still think that the stuff about development looks like developerspeak, but maybe this is OK (see my comment on the article's talk page). And all the other objections are gone. Morenoodles (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The article reads They were able to carry 500 tonnes (492.1 LT; 551.2 ST). I'd be very surprised if "500 tonnes" were precise to the nearest tonne; more likely to the nearest ten or hundred. Thus "492.1 LT" imparts bogus precision. That matter aside, I also find it hard to imagine readers who don't understand "tonne" yet do understand "LT" and/or "ST". Wouldn't "500 tonnes" be enough? And for that matter is there a non-trivial demographic that wants to read detailed histories of demolished power stations (which never stood in the US or any other nation that clings to ancient metrology) yet is confused by lengths in metres, capacities in litres, etc? Morenoodles (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah the ash boats. Do you think it should read To the nearest hundred, they were able to carry 500 tonnes... and do you think that all tonne conversions should be removed? How do you feel about the other conversions then? I think length conversions at least should be kept because imperial measurements are widely used still in the UK. Fintan264 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I fear that assorted Britons will jump up and down with rage (and pipe up to fail this FAC) if you have the temerity to do a mass removal of their ancient units; but really, I think only palaeoconservatives and those over 100 or so will fail to understand either "tonne" or the fact that "500 tonnes" means "very roughly five hundred tons" (and not "492 tons" or "551 tons"). So I'd remove talk of tons, ST and LT. But perhaps that's just me. Morenoodles (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I agree that the tonne conversions can go. There isn't enough difference between a tonne and a ton and a ton. I'll get it done in a few hours. Fintan264 (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
They're gone. I do feel the distance, length and smaller weight conversions should be kept. Fintan264 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have now pipelinked these files under my name to my user page.
I remember last time I was called up on this he was out the country, forgot about it and here we are again. The fella's once again out the country, until a week on thursday I think. So that'll be on hold till then, but of course I'll definately follow it up this time.
If it doesn't meet the citeria and shouldn't be there, I have no objection to you getting rid of it.
E-mail has been sent for the Aidan Doyle photographs, does it take a couple of days to process? Fintan264 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The OTRS has been verified. No more image concerns here. Jappalang (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Printed reference publishers, including those from the many newspaper citations used here, need italics.
Photo captions that are full sentences require periods.
Images shouldn't be directly below second-level section headers, like the one under Ash removal. That is one of the problems that Sandy was referring to.
From a quick scan of the first couple of sections, it seems fairly well-written. The one piece of advice I will give is to watch for overlinking. Things like riot, offices, brick, and pipes really don't need to be linked, because they are common terms. It's better to save links for when they provide the most use to readers; this is especially important considering there are a lot of valuable links throughout.Giants2008 (17-14) 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Been through, I think all of the printed reference publishers now have italics.
Only a couple are full sentences, given them fulls stops. Also made a couple that weren't full sentences into full sentences to read better.
I've now put the ash removal images on the right, I don't know if there were any others needing shifting but I don't think there are. If so please point them out.
Just been through and removed loads of pointless links.
"They stood on two sites, one on each side of a bend of the River Tyne. Stella South Power Station, the larger, stood on the south of the river, near Blaydon in Gateshead, while the smaller Stella North Power Station stood on the north, near Lemington in Newcastle." Try this:
"They stood on either side of a bend of the River Tyne: Stella South Power Station, the larger, on the south side, near Blaydon in Gateshead, and Stella North Power Station on the north side, near Lemington in Newcastle.
by ... by
"a couple of" is informal-speak for ... "two"?
"The pair were sister stations of similar design, and were built, opened, and closed together." Laboured. All parts of the sentence seem to be hammering the same point. "These sister stations were of similar design and were ..." is closer to it.
"The electricity generated was used to power local homes ...". Are you sifting through for redundant wording? "They powered local homes ...". Try these exercises.
Illogical: "Their operation required river traffic by flat iron barges to dump ash in the North Sea, and coal trains on both sides of the river to supply the stations with fuel." The fuel comes first, then the ash down the line, yes? And "their" is enough—remove "the stations with" and replace with "the".
Why a comma after "demolished"? Then ... "despite their heritage value as two of the ..."? Clumsy grammar and hard work for the readers to piece together the meaning.
"Their sites"—no, just "The sites". We know by now.
It needs a good copy-edit by someone who is unfamiliar thus far with the text. It's just not up to the required "professional standards". Could be a really good article. Not yet. Tony(talk) 11:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Been through now and carried out those suggested copyedits in the lead. You're right on in saying someone unfamiliar with the text needs to give it a run through to bring it up to standard. Fintan264 (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; can you buzz me after that is done? Tony(talk) 09:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeh, will do, but where can I go to get it done? Fintan264 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
See WP:PRV for a list of potential copy-editors. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed out a lot of copyedit/PR related things which I've put on the talkpage. JMiall₰ 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Tech. Review -- Based on the checker tools for dabs and external links, both are up to speed, while the ref formatting is also found up to speed based on WP:REFTOOLS.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.