Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Weymouth, Dorset/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

Weymouth, Dorset edit

Notified: Rossenglish, WikiProject Dorset, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Cities, Talk page notification 2020-10-23

An article promoted in 2006, that has never been reviewed. Issues:

  • uncited text (mainly in History);
  • dated figures;
  • lack of coverage regarding several social issues such as deprivation or teenage pregnancies (You just need to skim through a news article to get an idea of the sort of data that is missing);
  • prose is not of FA standard, for instance Parts of Sandsfoot have fallen into the sea due to coastal erosion. During the English Civil War, around 250 people were killed in the local Crabchurch Conspiracy in February 1645. - in one sentence we're talking about coastal erosion, in the next about the English Civil War;
  • please check the two notes on the talk page, there are more examples listed there. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetiredDuke several editors (including an IP) have been working on this; update needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's coming along nicely. There are still some inline citations missing (particularly in the notable people and the governace sections). I spotted close paraphrasing of Thewordtravels, I'll leave a note at the talk page. I's a work in progress. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on this but have limited time and from next week, when I return to work, will have even less. I am dedicated to saving the article however and hope I will be granted an extension to do so.--Ykraps (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ykraps There is no rush or deadline at FAR, from what I've seen the FAR coordinators are very flexible with time when there's someone actively improving the article (just check Wii below, for instance, or Earth, that was kept after 2 months). Please ask for feedback here when you feel the article has progressed enough (when everything is cited and up to date), so we can weigh on the smaller stuff. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke and Ykraps: update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I am looking for up-to-date sources for the Education section. The Sports and recreation, and the Notable people sections need a copy edit. Apart from that, I think I have attended to User:RetiredDuke's concerns (although I am happy to hear anymore of his thoughts) - I have added a couple of sentences noting deprivation in the Economy section. Which together with notes on the decline of trade and loss of cross-channel ferry services in the history sections, seems reasonable coverage to me. Particularly as the worst deprived areas are in Portland and not Weymouth. I have added missing citations, fixed close paraphrasing and the circular reference, and added updated figures where available.
As there hasn't been any comment from others, I have also been working on things that I think need fixing, such as bringing the history section up to date and adding a Culture section. --Ykraps (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coming along. Some citations still missing in "Notable People" and some minor updating needed. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of improvement happening, but it is still easy to see lots of problems. As an example, look at the dates of the sources used in the "Economy" section; the "Governance and politics" section; housing prices, crime and unemployment in "Demography"; and "Transport". Yikes; considerable work remains here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A week later, no progress in the sections mentioned above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Can we take this one step at a time and be a little more specific? I've been looking at the demography section and taking into account that the last UK census was 2011, it looks pretty much up to date. Local authorities and the ONS produce mid-year estimates but not for everything. Note how in this example, some of the 2018 mid-year estimates are sourced to the 2011 census.[[2]] If we can agree on the demography section first, we can move onto another section. Thanks for taking an interest in the article, by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer that I tag statements that need attention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, completely missed your last post. Are these issues resolved now? I am about to start on the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can look in tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @RetiredDuke: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my review ... please pardon the typing issues, as my computer is in repair and I am typing from a bluetooth iPad teensy keyboard.

  • This needs an independent source (that is, not the Weymouth Burough Council: The waters of Weymouth and Portland were credited by the Royal Yachting Association as the best in Northern Europe for sailing.[142] Please check throughout for similar.
    I've added a second reference.--Ykraps (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source ? http://www.adventureundersail.com/ship_specifications.html. Also, the citation is incomplete (lacking publisher); please check throughout that all sources are high quality and citations include relevant information.
    I can't see this at all. Do you have a FN number or can you tell me what it is referencing. Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ykraps:, thee one missing a publisher (please check all): "Ship Specifications". Archived from the original on 28 December 2011. Retrieved 16 February 2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am considering replacing the reference but I need to know what it is referencing first. The one without the publisher doesn't help me much. I have already trawled through all the references but presumably, I missed it and thought you could save me a bit of time.--Ykraps (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adventure under sail is the name of the charity that owns her and is an acceptable source for the information given in the article. However, the vessel is registered at London and doesn't appear to be as Weymouth-based as it once was so I have removed entirely.--Ykraps (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomis (in citations) is apparently “Office for National Statistics” ?? At Durham University ? Please complete the citations enough that non-UK people can understand what they are ... review throughout.
    Nomis is a database of labour market statistics run by the University of Durham. It is the official web-site for census information which is collected by the ONS but it is not the ONS.--Ykraps (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Nomis is a database. It is provided by the Office of National Statistics and hosted at Durham University. The citation is giving us no indication. Similarly, we have to guess that RYA is Royal Yachting Association. It would be helpful if you would comb through the citations and make sure others can understand who the publishers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if you pointed to the guideline or MOS that is relevant here so I can better understand your objection and work toward a solution. The publisher of these statistics is Nomis, not the ONS so I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Explaining the workings of UK government is really beyond the template's capabilities.--Ykraps (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page and this one explain that it is a database hosted at the University of Durham, but for the Office for National Statistics. The database is a work, the publisher is ONS or Durham? Presumably ONS, as they are the ones providing the data that Durham hosts in a database? What I am asking you to do is not make readers guess what sources are. That is, I don’t list NINDS in a citation, and expect people throughout the world to guess what that acronym stands for ... I list National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. US National Institutes of Health. Help the reader know what kind of source you are using (that is, help the FA reviewer, too :) Who knows what RYA means? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought you were asking me to explain the roles of each publisher.--Ykraps (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jurassic Coast Trust is the independent charity responsible for managing the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Clicking on the link from the UNESCO site takes you to Jurassic Coast.com. [[3]] I really don't think that describing something as wide is puffery but I have removed nevertheless.--Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source? https://web.archive.org/web/20071208042329/http://www.johnrnew.demon.co.uk/quaybrch.htm
    • Also, I could not verify Transport police, and the sentence is convoluted ... An unusual feature of the railways in Weymouth was that until 1987 main-line trains ran through the streets and along the Weymouth Harbour Tramway to the Quay station at the eastern end of the harbour, to connect with ferries to mainland Europe and had to be escorted by the British Transport Police. Due to declining business, goods traffic ceased in 1972, but passenger services continued until 1987.[109]
    I've rewritten and added a new source.--Ykraps (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not verify the 1,000 (I suspect a subpage of the source is the intended citation): Weymouth's Sealife centre, a zoo and adventure park on the outskirts of the town, has over 1,000 examples of aquatic and semi-aquatic life, including sharks, turtles, otters, frogs and penguins.[103]
    Underneath the photograph of the penguins, it reads, "Explore an amazing underwater world and take a fascinating journey to the ocean depths at Weymouth SEA LIFE Adventure Park! Get up close to over 1,000 creatures in 15 different zones, including our playful otters, mesmerising sharks, and rescued sea turtles". I think WTC have messed about with their website since so I have added a second reference for the creatures.--Ykraps (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, there are two citations at the end of the next sentence; could you put the citation that verifies the 17% on that sentence? Tourism is important to the local economy, employing 17% of the local workforce.[citation needed]
    I have removed one of the references as the other was sufficient for both sentences.--Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unable to verify this statement: The international kite festival, held in May each year on Weymouth Beach, has attracted around 40,000 spectators to the esplanade from around the world.[130]
    I've added a reference for this. Do you think they are the same 40,000 kite groupies that attend these festivals all around the world? [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a completely random look at samples of the sources and citations indicating they are not yet ready for a full review.

  • MOS:SEASONS Weymouth Beach attracts thousands of visitors in summer.
    Summer, in this instance, is referring to the warmest part of the year. As the warmest part of the year is the summer the world over, I don't see the relevance of MOS:Seasons. If you prefer, I could change it to "warmest part of the year".--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Tony1 writing exercises on overuse of the (almost always redundant) word ‘’also’’.
    Almost always, perhaps but certainly not always. Do you have a particular occurrence in mind?--Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acronyms should be spelled out on first occurrence, eg Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CURRENT ... The town has undergone considerable regeneration in the last two decades, much of it in anticipation of 2012 Summer Olympics. Work began in 2007 on improvements to the esplanade: a public square was constructed around the restored statue of King George III, the Art Deco pier bandstand was restored and extended, a Tourist information centre and café was built, along with Victorian-style shelters and seasonal kiosks, a beach rescue centre, and a sand art pavilion for the sculptures of Mark Anderson.[80]
    • THe “last two decades” will become dated— the entire thing can be recast to avoid mentioning the last two decades, using specific dates instead.
    The specific dates follow. I have simply removed the sentence to avoid confusion.--Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is enough for a start; we are still quite far off of WP:WIAFA standards, but the larger problems are no longer datedness, rather sourcing, citations, verification, and source-to-text integrity. I have not (yet) read the entire article nor undertaken a complete review— this is only some random bouncing around to check things, and this indicates a good deal of work is needed to bring this to standard before others can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that most of my concerns have been addressed, but if other reviewers do not weigh in, we may need to Move to FARC just to get more feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments:

  • For population data, the archived versions have the information necessary, but the first link people will click is the top one, which leads to a generic website about Weymouth. Can we suppress that?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that 95.2% of the UK population is white British. I think that source talks about Weymouth in particular. Our article on White British, based on 2011 census, indicates this number is significantly lower. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that I have received the ping, but did not engage sooner because I did not want to step on anyone's (mainly Sandy's) toes. I am now copyediting the article and will post here shortly. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I will stop now, because I can't work with so many edit conflicts. Just my luck, when I finally put my hands on it. Will resume in a few hours. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Minor comments:

  • Please address the clarification tag in the lead; it isn't mine and "Weymouth proper" does not bother me, but the tag has to go.
    I think the simplest option is to remove the confusing 'proper'.--Ykraps (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is still worth £4 million pa - per annum, right? Maybe clarify.
    Yep. Spelled out.--Ykraps (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously engaged in the article's talk page and Ykraps has incorporated all the suggestions and sources I presented there. I performed a brief copyedit and found no major issues. The article looks OK to me now. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a maintenance tag in the lead. And I am so sorry if I already asked this, but what makes https://neglectedauthors.wordpress.com/ a reliable source? (It is hard to keep up when editing from an iPad as my computer is in repair.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it “testing of the Bouncing bomb” as opposed to the bouncing bomb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

  • The author will need some pretty good credentials for geoffkirby.co.uk to count as a high-quality RS for weather data
    I've removed everything referenced to Geoff Kirby. He is a journalist, author and local historian.[[8]][[9]] Not sure what makes him a weather expert.--Ykraps (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or from one of its three relay transmitters in the town (Wyke Regis, Bincombe Hill and Preston)" - source is from 2009, is this still accurate?
    Yep but happy to remove this entire section if needs be. It's optional per [[10]].--Ykraps (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusure that thewordtravels.com is high-quality RS
    As it wasn't citing anything exceptional, I don't think a high-quality source is required but I have changed nevertheless.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Sandy mentions above, the neglected authors wordpress site is not going to be RS. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And see WP:RSP, the Daily Express is a tabloid ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is "generally unreliable". Nor is the 1885 date questionable, coinciding as it does with the Redistribution of Seats Act (1885). However, as it isn't adding much, I've removed.--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And is movie-locations high-quality RS? I'm not familiar with most British sources, so I can't guarantee there aren't others I missed. Also a little distracted when I looked through this, as I'm still a bit frazzled from accidentally catching the lawn on fire earlier today. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as it's not controversial, whether it requires a high-quality source is arguable but I have changed nevertheless. Caught your lawn on fire!!! mine's still underwater! :)--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke:, @SandyGeorgia:, @Femkemilene:, @Hog Farm:, Are you satisfied now that this article meets FAR criteria?--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few bits that may need updating / explicit mention of time.
  • The 2018 float is described as 'still worth 4 million', even though Brexit export declines may be upended that. Should be dated in text.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of culture is completely sourced to pre-2010 sources.
Updated.--Ykraps (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the school closed on 1 May 2019 -> specific date surely not relevant? Month+year / only year
I think the specific dates are required in order to give an indication of how long the school was shut for. May 2019 to June 2019 could be less than 24 hrs.--Ykraps (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Level 4+ qualifications aren't mentioned on the linked article. Could you explain? Is that space between 4 and + okay?
I've added a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • windsurfing / kitesurfing don't have hyphen
Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local, national and international sailing events (...) only mentions pre-2006 events; any recent ones / old ones that don't have lasting importance? FemkeMilene (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was the 2012 Olympics of course but that has been over-mentioned. Most recent ones have been cancelled due to the pandemic but I'll see what I can dig up. The 2015 ISAF Sailing World Cup was held there; I'll try to find a reference for it.--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to stick with international events, I've added 3, post 2015.--Ykraps (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. Another 10 minute look and I couldn't find any more outstanding issues. I'm sure more improvements can be made, but I'm satisfied. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, my concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC I had already stated above that I was satisfied w/ the article and that all my queries were answered, but I'm stating it again to make the coords' job easier. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC issues appear to have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2021 (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_review/Weymouth,_Dorset/archive1&oldid=1014245624"