Wikipedia:Peer review/Federation of Stoke-on-Trent/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's an article that's got to GA status but even though I've read the instructions for WP:FAC I'm unsure what needs to add to this article to get it to that standard.
- Comments from Apterygial
Good to see editors aiming for FAC, but this article has a fair way to go. I can't really comment on the subject matter, but otherwise I reviewed as I would at FAC. Be aware that a lot of these points are only examples of multiple instances of those problems.
- The first sentence should introduce the subject first; I don't think it should put emphasis on how unusual it was. What was the Federation of Stoke-on-Trent? When did it happen?
- "The six towns of ... all have their own histories." This is self evident, or they wouldn't be separate towns. The sentence appears to be there to introduce the towns, in which case this could be done in the first paragraph.
- Are those six towns "the Potteries towns"? If so, they should be defined as such at first mention.
- "The plan arose after an Act of Parliament brought a restructure in the county system that would see the creation of the county of Staffordshire." Anthropomorphism; the plan didn't see anything. Perhaps "... that created the county of Staffordshire."
- "Instead only the town of Hanley gained County Borough status due to it being the only town that met the criteria, principally population,
for being a county borough." Perhaps even drop "principally population" from the lead.
- In that same example "County Borough" is capitalised the first time and is not the second.
- "lying dead" is another anthropomorphism.
- "Again disagreement arose on the complex financial issues of rates, assets and loans." Better to introduce these specific concerns the first time they became an issue.
- "It was against these failing regimes, e.g. Tunstall manorial court lapsed in 1813, that the first stages in the long road to federation began." "e.g." is clumsy in professional prose. Perhaps use "for example" and separate from text using dashes or brackets.
- Also: "that the
first stages in thelong road to federation began." Having said that, "long road" is a bit journalistic (for lack of a better word). Do you have any alternative wording for the sentence?
- Is 1825 less than a decade after 1813?
Early proposals at co-operation
- "The first tentative step towards co-operation was taken in 1817 when a meeting in Hanley called for future joint public meetings called by the head constables of the various settlements to be held in Hanley." Is this a quote? If so, quotation marks, rather than italics, should be used.
- Parliamentary borough should be linked at first mention.
- Dashes rather than hyphens should be used to separate clauses.
- If "Reform Act" is italicised, all subsequent uses (provided they mention the same Reform Act) should be as well.
- "Shortly after the introduction of the Reform Act a Municipal Corporations Bill was introduced". Repetition of "introduced".
- "The same meeting in Burslem did however resurrect a theme from the meeting before 1820 and that was the promotion of law and order in the Potteries, the meeting calling for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate." Perhaps "The same meeting in Burslem revisited a theme from the meeting before 1820—the promotion of law and order in the Potteries—and called for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate."
- There's no cite for the last two sentences of this section.
The County plan of 1888
- Per MOS:HEAD, headings should not start with "The".
- borough should be linked at first mention, if at all.
- Cite for the second paragraph?
- Woodall should face the text, per MOS:IMAGE.
- That big block of italic text should instead be in quotation marks.
- "... they opted for Hanley to take its county borough status, effectively killing the county proposal or even the county borough proposal." Presumably the county borough proposal in question refers to that of the Potteries, not Hanley's own proposal.
First federation proposal 1900–1903
- "In December 1900 Stoke town council proposed a meeting with 'a view to federal action'." Quotation marks, rather than apostrophes.
- The last sentence of the first paragraph is missing a full stop.
- "Geen's report appeared in July 1903 and increased opposition to the
wholeidea of federation."
Second federation proposal 1905–1910
- "The events surrounding this last poll were in the words of the Staffordshire Advertiser "unprecedented" with both sides making every effort to ensure their supporters voted." Problem here is that "unprecedented" is one word (also, "with" is an awkward joining word and is worth avoiding). Perhaps "The Staffordshire Advertiser described the events surrounding this last poll as "unprecedented"; both sides made every effort to ensure their supporters voted."
- "For procedural reasons, only the submission made by Longton was valid". How so?
- "The inquiry opened on 8 January 1908 and lasted for three days, it was chaired by Major Norton, an officer of the Local Government Board." The first comma should either be a semi-colon or period. There's also a double period after the next sentence.
- I've never seen that particular citation style in use on Wikipedia. I suppose my problem with it is that you have to go to the Notes section to see the source, and then back to the body of the text to check the page number. It also seems to take up a lot of room in the article; perhaps better to have a sprawling Notes section.
- There seems to be an aversion to commas in the article, and as a result a lot of sentences seem to ramble. Some existing commas should also be semi-colons. A thorough check of the article is advised.
- The article needs a serious copyedit for prose. The FA criterion 1a is interpreted very strongly at FAC, and it is very common to see nominations archived simply on prose concerns. The specific concerns I have raised here I should stress are only examples, and there are many more.
I don't mean to put you off; it's clear that a lot of work has gone into the article and it is largely a good read. However, FAC deservedly has a reputation for rigour and you should only take this article there when you are absolutely confident it is ready. Apterygial talk 07:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive feedback. I think I have addressed the points raised and have raised a request with the Guild of Copy Editors for a review of that side of things. NtheP (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)