Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Birchington-on-Sea

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Birchington-on-Sea edit

Recently reached GA status and I think it meets the FA criteria. Epbr123 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • Some paragraphs are too short. A good paragraph should be at least four sentences or so. Generally, if you have a 2-3 sentence paragraph, it should either be expanded or combined with another paragraph.
  • Going along with the previous bullet point, I dislike really short sections. In the case of this article, the Sport and Notable residents section are borderline o.k. but the Local media and Twin town sections are too short.
  • You have some unnecessary wikilinks. Make sure only the first instance of a word is linked (for example, only the first instance of km and miles should be wikilinked).↔NMajdan•talk 19:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the short paragraphs and sections, but I don't think I can remove the links from the km & miles as its part of the {{convert|0|mi|km|0|lk=on}} template. Epbr123 21:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now worked out how to remove the links to km & mi and they have now been fixed. Epbr123 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the subject matter shouldn't be too hard to get a few photos (?). Also, a few sentence tweaks needed:
In ancient times, it is known that Minnis Bay was once... - remove in ancient times which is redundant.
Man-made artefacts have also been discovered in the area dating from Roman and prehistoric times - could be rewritten too. "Roman and prehistoric artefacts have also been discovered in the area"
Over the centuries,.. -remove as redundant.

I will look later but can't support until it has some piccies. sorry cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures aren't part of the featured article criteria, so I fail to see the relevance in the last comment as regards whether you'd support or not. LuciferMorgan 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay..the point being I would not consider supporting unless there were pictures given that it should be a straightforward task to get some. Now that there are I will have a look later today. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the same way, but it's best to leave the discussion at that. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 19:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm..no. There was no point continuing to review the text until pix were added, which they have been. Now I have concluded. as you can see.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely with the statement "There was no point continuing to review the text until pix were added", and sincerely hope you're in the minority on this. The nominator chose to add pictures but wasn't required to. This FAC is an assessment of whether this article meets the criteria or not, not whether it has pictures or not. If you feel pictures should be part of the criteria then please discuss the issue at the criteria talk page. LuciferMorgan 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmmmm...criterion 3 maybe?cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on your viewpoint of "where appropriate". And back on the subject, you wouldn't support an article just because it doesn't have pictures? That's awful. I sincerely hope other FAC reviewers do not adopt this approach of reviewing, and withholding a vote based on pictures. LuciferMorgan 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I decided what "appropriate" was and as far as "awful", who's supporting this article and who isn't? But you're right, we should take this to the talk page. I note it has not been discussed as of yet after checking the archives.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures have now been added. Epbr123 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Work on wikilinking, per WP:CONTEXT. Common terms should not be linked (and it's not clear other terms are linked as they should be — for example, why the choice to wikilink bridge but not chess ? And why isn't Chinese porcelain linked to Chinese ceramics? These are examples only — lots to be checked.) Sloppy prose — please don't use ampersand for the word "and" (article still needs copyedit). See also templates belong at the top of sections (see WP:GTL). Why is Visual Arts capped here: to become a specialist Visual Arts school? Is north-east hyphenated or one word (I'm not sure). Book sources should have page numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no problem with wikilinking. Chess is clearly more well known than bridge. The ampersands were included to help clarity. It is not a requirement for book sources to have page numbers. Nice try. Epbr123 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I don't have to do X because the rules don't specifically say I must" is a poor argument. Very clearly, page numbers should be provided for any volume of significant length. It's common practice in notes section. Ref 5 is also lacking publisher information. Finally, the last ref to IMDb is not a reliable source.
      • Chess may be better known than bridge, but it looks oddly inconsistent. Marskell 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't provide those references so I can't add the page numbers. I don't agree with you about the bridge link. Words shouldn't be linked just to make the text look nice. Epbr123 10:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 15:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi. Most of Sandy's comments were actually fixed this morning. Thanks for your opinion anyway. Epbr123 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for a second look.

  • I can't determine how this site rises to the level of WP:RS: http://www.victorianartinbritain.co.uk/about.htm
  • Sites like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/06/school_tables/primary_schools/html/agg_886.stm have a publication date (07 December, 2006), which should be listed in the ref (I give this example here, so you can fix these on all of your noms) Ditto for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/education/04/school_tables/secondary_schools/html/886_gcse_lea.stm (19 October 2005)
  • I don't find the 750 pupils mentioned on the cited page, and that statement should be qualified by a date (as in 750 pupils as of whatever year). Also, the word "currently" should be avoided, as it becomes outdated ... you should say when, specifically. "It has around 750 pupils and is currently seeking government support to become a specialist visual arts school.[38] "
  • This isn't exactly what the sources says, slightly misleading: "The Parish Councillors do not have an allegiance to a political party.[37]" Please doublecheck that all of your sources support the text cited.
    • Its was clear what it meant. Epbr123 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is Local Elections capped here but not in the main article it links to? "As of the 2007 Local Elections, all five ... "
  • Totaltravel.com is a commercial source. (I started from the bottom, and stopped reviewing sources at that point, as work is still needed — now back to the other issues.)
  • The wikilinking issues (WP:CONTEXT) have not been addressed.
  • & in place of and has not been addressed.

I struck a few items above (templates), but most is still unaddressed. I'll wait for you to finish these sorts of items in all five noms before continuing to review the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for a third look. Here, too, looks like just about everything addressed, but one more copyedit runthough is needed:

  • Church archive have shown that the village's All Saints church dates back to at least around 1350. (very redundant - Archives show the village's All Saints Church dates to around 1350 ???)
  • Perhaps too much delinking? Not sure on cliff stacks, since it's a term specialized to Geology.

I suggest a day or two off, to get distance from the text of the articles, and then a fresh run through to spot redundancies and copyedit problems, after looking at the guide on Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s page. Almost there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for a fourth look. Please run through the text one more time: I shouldn't be able to find sentences like this on a quick glance (As a seaside resort, there various clubs for watersports.) "Various" is used throughout the sports section. Also, consider whether you want to use a word to avoid (claim) in the lead—perhaps it's intended, but if it's really only a "claim", why does it warrant mention in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my oppose after making some final ce changes myself; please check to see if meaning was correct in those changes I made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until Sandy's fresh concerns are addressed, and due to stubby sections which should be merged. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short paragraphs have been merged where appropriate. Epbr123 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it be an idea to include the civil_parish field and data in the InfoBox for completeness. Also, wouldn't some indication of the surrounding parishes, perhaps even using a compass-table, in the appropriate section would help place it into a larger context?  DDStretch  (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the parish council to the infobox and have mentioned the surrounding civil parishes in the geography section, but I'm not sure about adding a compass-table as the town is neighboured by some unparished areas. Epbr123 09:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. I've replied with one suggestion on my talk page to your question, but one other alternative is to simply enter "unparished" or "(unparished)" in those cells where relevant. Trying out a few alternatives in a sandbox and seeing how they look next to each other might be a way forward.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The table has been added. Epbr123 14:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concern: Please include where the village gets its drinking water from and where its sewage goes. Is Quex Park the only park in the town? The introduction says "Birchington-on-Sea is a village and civil parish" - what is the difference between a village and civil parish? --maclean 05:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added local recreation grounds to the culture section and about the water to the geography section. Civil parishes have now been explained in the politics section. Epbr123 08:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not think it was necessary to explain the differences between a village and a civil parish, as the link to civil parish was in place, and that could have been followed to find out. The fact is, many villages in England are contained in a civil parish, and in quite a few of these cases, the name of the civil parish is the same as the name of the village. It would be tedious in the extreme to repeat such definitional information in each such village article when a linked article that explains it is already there. In this case, it is a minor point, but if such a requirement was universally required, I don't think it would be a good thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the village part I don't get. Why make the distinction? We don't say that "Boston is a city and municipality..." or that "A cougar is an animal and a mammal..." And, on a side note, where I'm from (not the UK) we call communities of 9800 people "cities" (a small city) with villages being on the order of 1000 people. --maclean 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all villages are parishes and not all parishes are villages. Epbr123 20:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not all villages are civil parishes, and vice versa. Incidentally, Chew Stoke is also a village and a civil parish, and it is being considered for FA status as well at the moment. No one has asked for these terms to be explained. To go some way to explaining the village issue, I will link the reference to the appropriate article. However, in some cases, I have seen such links being removed by other editors on the grounds that to include them would be a case of Overlinking.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a foreigner so please bear with me. I don't oppose based on the whole "is a village and civil parish" in the lead sentence (it was just a question), but it just seems unnecessary to me, as it seems "village" is just a colloquial term according to the link provided (it is a good link, does help). Anyways... Questions/Concerns (Will Raul654 decide which are serious and which are just questions?):

  • Is this the civil parish website [1]? Why doesn't it call itself "Birchington-on-Sea"?
  • The "History" section stops at 1923, this can be made more comprehensive by going telling us what has happened since? Good times? bad times?
  • In the Geography section, why put "miles" before "km"? I thought UK was metric.
  • Why put the climate data for another town? Those big climate boxes aren't a requirement. if the data isn't available, then the data isn't available.
  • "Wakeboard and Water Ski Club, which was established in 2004 to help alleviate anti-social behaviour in the area." it is that easy?
  • Several of "references" in the Culture section are just ext.links to a club's homepage. --maclean 23:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Birchington-on-Sea is the town's full name. Officially, the UK is metric but UK people still prefer to use miles than km. The climate data for Wye gives a rough idea of what the climate for Birchington is like. Wakeboard and Water Ski Club was established to help alleviate anti-social behaviour. The club's homepages provide info supporting the article. Epbr123 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to search for more recent notable events to put in the history, but I can't find any that aren't already mentioned in other sections. Epbr123 12:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "the village's full name". Unless the area is a town because it has a town council rather than a parish council, that is.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're really fast. I switched the units to km|mi as the remainder of the article used metric|imperial. I wish my town had water skiing to help alleviate the anti-social behaviour. Some of the data in the census table is repeated in the text. --maclean 00:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The table is to help give an overview to the text, similar to the infobox at the start of the article. Epbr123 00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an addition: it is true that Birchington-on-Sea is the village's full name. The civil parish and the village are not the same thing, however, and slight name differences can happen. Indeed, the name of the parish may bear little in common to any of the settlements located within it. If required, the text could be altered to read something like "Birchington-on-Sea is a village and (as Birchington) a civil parish..."  DDStretch  (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been reworded. Epbr123 11:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Birchington-on-Sea&oldid=1138456051"