Wikipedia:Peer review/Cardiff/archive1

Cardiff

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's currently B-class and, given the importance of the city within Wales and the UK in general, we (the regular editors of this page) would like to get it up to Featured Article status (or GA-class at the very least) and so we would like a few pointers on how to do so.

Thanks, Bettia ^(talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and very long article that needs some work to get to FA (or GA along the way). Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

A model article is often useful for ideas to follow on style, refs, structure, etc. There are several city FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places including New York City, Bath, Somerset, and Navenby, which may be useful models. I also note that London is a GA.
Read WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA. I would also watch WP:FAC and look at recent GA nominees to get some ideas of common problems encountered on the road to GA and FA.
The current lead seems overly detailed and, in a few places, repetitive to me - do we need to know all the TV shows filmed there? Or does the Welsh National Assembly have to be mentioned twice in the lead? The TV shows are not in the article that I saw - the lead should be a summary and should only repeat what is in the bdy of the article. See WP:WEIGHT
I would rewrite the lead when the article is otherwise pretty much done to summarize the rest of the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in some way - you may need fewer headers (another suggestion). See WP:LEAD
Article needs a lot more refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. For example, the first two paragraphs of Etymology are uncited, or the second bg paragraph of Geography. See WP:CITE and WP:V
The article is big - one way is to trim it by splitting articles out and making summaries as per WP:Summary style. Another way is to make the focus tighter and avoid repetition - for example, do we need the detail on the Norman castle and Roman fort in Etymology? Maybe in history... Or does the lead infobox map need to be repeated later in the article?
FA discourages image galleries and I notice that much of the rest of the article is lacking images, so could the best images from the galleries bu spread throughout the rest of the article? Could the oldest castle image be in Etymology, for example?
Also need to make sure images are set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over (panoramas are an exception - could possibly use {{wide image}} on one of them.
The PR script has some useful suggestions on MOS things - linked above.
Refs need to back up the whole paragraph they are used for if they are the only ref for that paragraph - for example current ref 12 (^ St Fagans Conservation Area Appraisal. Cardiff County Council (2007). Retrieved on April 18, 2008. ) is only about St. Fagans, but is used for two sentences To the north west of the city lies a region that may be called "Rural Cardiff" containing the villages of St. Fagans, Creigiau, Pentyrch, Tongwynlais and Gwaelod-y-garth. St. Fagans, home to the Museum of Welsh Life, is protected from further development.[12] It seems fine for the last sentence, but is not a ref for the first.
In general refs need more information and to be consistently formatted. Internet refs need at least url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be useful here.
One sentence and short paragraphs (such as On March 1, 2004, Cardiff was granted Fairtrade City status. - needs a ref - or "Festivals" section has four such in a row) should be combined with another paragraph or perhaps expanded. Same for short sections and subsections (such as Parks - perhaps combine with Festivals as Festivals and Parks? or Cardiff is also home of the largest regional office of the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IB). ... needs a ref, is unclear (largest in the world? in Europe? in the UK?) and as a two sentence section could be combined elsewhere.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welshleprechaun's comments:

According to Census 2001 data, Cardiff was the 14th largest settlement in the United Kingdom, and the 21st largest urban area. - Can we use the data from the 2006 LA estimate. Cities can grow a lot in 5 years.
Information on Cardiff being the primate city of Wales keeps being removed. It's undeniable that it is.
History section needs some large trimming given that there's already an article itself on the History of Cardiff.
Maybe some sourced information on what's classified as being in the county but not in the city. I know that very little is outside the city but in the county.
More required on religious minorities other than Jews and Muslims which already have something on them.

Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pondle's comments:

The 2006 LA population estimates are already used in the article. However, they do not provide consistent comparisons between settlements since they refer to local authorities, which are not the same thing. Data on settlements are only produced following the census.
I've seen no sources describing Cardiff as a primate city. Until a reliable source is produced to support this claim, it's (at best) contentious original research.
We need to keep the spelling and grammar tight, e.g. making sure the active voice is used whenever possible. The Plain English campaign has some useful guidance.[1] I think most of the article is already very well written though.

Pondle (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. You have some bare urls in the references, those need to be formatted with a title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)