Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London/archive4

< 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:06, 10 June 2008 [1].

London

edit
previous FAC withdrawn
previous FAC 2
previous FAC 1

Self Nomination Hi there, I've been working on this article for some time now, and also have had it gone through Peer Review, located here. I think it meets the FA criteria, and would be happy to make changes to it if you don't agree. The Helpful One (Review) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename 'Sister Cities' to 'Sister cities'
  • move 'Further reading' to after 'References'
  • "# ^ [1] Green City Walks in London. Retrieved on August 17, 2007." — unformatted reference
  • Done Removed the sentence and reference bsrboy (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "^ London School of Economics and Political Science. London School of Economics accessdate=2008-04-28." — broken
  • "^ London in its Regional Setting (PDF). London Assembly. Retrieved on [[August 16, 2007]]." — bad link
  • In fact, the above happens to several references. Fix them please.
  • Placement of ref is incorrect at "Business Week's D-School list"
  • Done removed the paragraph as it doesn't add much useful information, nor is it correct bsrboy (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use en dashes per WP:DASH for numerical ranges such as page numbers, including "61-64"
This still needs to be done, if it hasn't already. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London , Kodachrome " — extra space
Where abouts is this in the article? bsrboy (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This must have been removed after I made this review. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • "Demography" → "Demographics" per WP:CITIES Nevermind, I'm more familiar with American city articles, as you can tell. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more:
Not done yet. An en dash is this: "–", which you can generate using – or {{ndash}}. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaces needed for "1666.[40]This", "city.[41]A ", "Canary Wharf.[143]Soho ", and at least half a dozen other spots. - Done --The Helpful One (Review) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capping comments. I made some minor fixes, also. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: perfect article --Andrea 93 04:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adacore (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I've never written any comments on a FAC before, so forgive me if I don't do this right. I did a quick read through and seem to have generated quite a few mostly minor points...

  • The second paragraph of the lead begins "It is". I'd suggest changing this to "London is" then switch the usage of "London boasts" in the second sentence to "It boasts". Or, if you don't like having two consecutive paragraphs beginning "London is", how about "One of the world's leading business, financial, and cultural centres,[15] London's influence..."
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Rise of modern London", I'd prefer a word other than flattened to describe the WW2 bombing, perhaps destroyed. Just look at the picture - definitely not flat.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Local government", I don't like "The administration of London takes place in 2 tiers". Suggest "is formed of two tiers". Note also that as a number less than 10, two should be written out.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the detail on the British/European/Commonwealth parliamentary systems in the second paragraph of National government is relevant to an article on London.
Done -- Removed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like the first line of Scope. It should be made clear that the geographic definition of London's boundaries is being discussed, not some other form of definition. It also says "the situation was once even more ambiguous", without making it clear that it is at all ambiguous now.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in Scope, shouldn't it be "the Square Mile"?
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume that the second paragraph in the Districts section should start "The City of London" and some well meaning editor has changed this to just London, which makes the paragraph seem very out of place.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eastern side of London" doesn't sound right to me. Do cities have 'sides'? To me a 'side' implies a boundary, not a region. I suppose New York does, so maybe this is ok.
Done Changed to region. --The Helpful One (Review) 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Demography: "...its wider metropolitan area has a population of between 12 and 14 million depending on the definition of that area."; drop "of that area." Perhaps change to "definition used."
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ethnic Groups, why not simplify "by about six to four" to "by about three to two"?
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Religion, I'd say "Religious practice in London is lower" rather than just "Religious practice is lower" to make clear the article is referring to London as a whole, not one of the aforementioned Cathedrals or Abbeys.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Economy, "London stock exchanges have had approximately 20% more initial public offerings in 2006." Remove "have", or update.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Economy - as a tourist destination London is second only to Paris in what context? Most popular city in the world? This should be clarified.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Parks and Gardens, I'm surprised that Regents Park makes reference to Sherlock Holmes and Madame Tussauds but not to London Zoo, which is, I would think, both the most relevant and the most important attraction nearby. I'd remove the Holmes reference, since it's mentioned in the Literature section.
Done The Helpful One (Review) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leisure and entertainment says just "Selfridges" but "Harrods department store". I'd assume that if people don't know Harrods is a department store, they certainly won't know that Selfridges is. It should probably also say "London is home to designers Vivienne Westwood..."
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely certain that ballet should be in the Music section. Maybe it could be moved up to "Leisure and entertainment", perhaps mentioned alongside Covent Garden, where the Royal Ballet is based, with the Coliseum (but not Sadlers Wells) nearby for ENB.
Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar theme, a seperate theatre section might be merited - West End theatre is certainly famous enough and at present there's only a passing reference. Alternatively it might be an idea to strip down the Music section and assume that people can follow the link to Culture of London.
Not sure if required/what you mean --The Helpful One (Review) 20:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Sport, why does Twickenham give a capacity while Wembley does not?
Done - and cited the addition. The Helpful One (Review) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Sport, I really don't like "London Towers are the most recognisable name to experience the rise and fall". In fact, the basketball part in general seems far too extensive in the context of the rest of the article and the relative lack of the sport's popularity in the UK.
Done - Removed Basketball from Sport. The Helpful One (Review) 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Transport - possibly personal style, but I don't like starting sentences with "However".
Done changed the full stop into a comma. What about starting a sentence with "although"? bsrboy (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Railways, "Over three million journeys a day are made on the Underground network, around nearly 1 billion journeys are made each year." Drop one of "around" and "nearly", drop the second "are made".
Done, dropped "around" per the reference. Reference was for 2003, so it might have gone up (or down). A new reference would be great. bsrboy (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Air, "to the disapproval of residents near to the airport and to its take-off and landing corridors" doesn't scan well. Either rephrase or remove completely, I'd suggest removal.
Done Removed. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of overlinking of universities in Education, and the paragraph about Imperial comes in before it is mentioned as an 'other university', then later on Imperial's leaving the University of London is mentioned. It generally seems a bit mixed up, I suggest a rejig of the whole section.
  • Also, education makes very little reference to the Primary and Secondary education in London and problems faced by inner city schools. Perhaps this isn't in the article scope though.
Not in required scope - AFAIK. The Helpful One (Review) 20:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, not exactly experienced at this, so if anything above is silly just ignore it. Adacore (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a hide to the done comments. --The Helpful One (Review) 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unhidden these comments. Do not hide the comments of other users; allow them to decide whether you have addressed their issues. BuddingJournalist 13:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. --The Helpful One (Review) 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I think all my concerns (except perhaps the disorder in the universities part of the education section) have been addressed, I think the referencing/sourcing problems mentioned by others are too bad to merit a support, so I must regretfully oppose. I might have a look at fixing the referencing myself at some point if nobody else does it, but I can only really do that properly when I'm back in the UK, which won't be for a couple of months. Adacore (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher - Done The Helpful One (Review) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known. - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linck checker tool shows a few dead links. - Done The Helpful One (Review) 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link checker tool still shows broken links. BuddingJournalist 13:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now, one link will work tommorow AFAIK, when the server comes back online. The Helpful One (Review) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments about sources and references:

I'd like to point out the HEAVY reliance of this article on online sources, to the exclusion of much more reliable printed works. There are a number of printed histories of London that should have been used in preference to some of the websites for the history section. There is no requirement that everything be available online. We want reliable sources, and often times that means they need to be printed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on the sourcing. I don't think I've ever done this. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: please see the instructions at WP:FAC, remove the graphics, and refrain from breaking up or adding to someone else's post. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The second paragraph in Districts is more economy based. Some of this should be moved into the economy section. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks like a great article from where I'm standing --Thanks, Hadseys 11:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose I skimmed through some of the sources used, and what I found in my few minutes of looking is rather troubling.
Done, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/english/ bsrboy (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/guide/resources/history.html and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/timeline/romanbritain_timeline_noflash.shtml bsrboy (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Permanent/medieval/Themes/1033/1035/default.htm bsrboy (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reference is used 16 times, bsrboy (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Past/MissingLink/Themes/TML_themes_Lundenwic.htm
  2. http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/Collections/Onlineresources/RWWC/themes/1295/1288
I'm having trouble locating this within the article. Could you point me in the right direction? bsrboy (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the Districts section, first section, first sentence, directly after: "London's vast urban area is often described using a set of district names (e.g. Bloomsbury, Knightsbridge, Mayfair, Whitechapel, Fitzrovia)." The Helpful One (Review) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference gives a long list of places and their translations, so it doesn't really back up what the sentence says. Seeing as a reference is very difficult to find for this I propose we change it to "London's vast urban area has districts that are not technicaly districts in the England district system, but have special characteristics or are very well known." Something like that perhaps, although I question the need for this sentence in the first place. bsrboy (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, http://www.gardenweb.com/zones/europe/hze1.html.The Helpful One (Review) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a random unsourced map from a gardening website a reliable source? BuddingJournalist 19:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "London is a major centre for international business and commerce and is one of three "command centres" for the world economy (along with New York City and Tokyo)." Lacks page number. Sassen's classification is up for scholarly debate. Many would argue there are more than three "command centres" for the world economy.
  • "According to the dictionary definition[78] of 'the seat of government', London is not the capital of England, as England does not have its own government, however according to the wider dictionary definition[79] of, 'the most important town...' and many other authorities[80][81] London is properly considered the capital of England.[82]" So many problems in this odd and confusing sentence. The dictionary definition? Comma splice. And I'm sure a junior high school's web page is a great authority on this subject. - Done, made clearer and changed the reference to http://www.great-britain.co.uk/london.htm The Helpful One (Review) 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited statistics in the Demography section. - Done Cited. The Helpful One (Review) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) BuddingJournalist 12:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many problems with this article. Below are a small sampling of them. Fixing these alone will not bring the article up to standard. This is a large, complex subject that will require lots of effort and time to clean up. Since FAC is not a peer review, I'd suggest withdrawing this article for now and working with a bunch of interested editors to bring this up to standard. Go through line-by-line, examining prose and sources.
  • Oppose per Ealdgyth and BuddingJournalist; too many reliable sources issues at this stage (and the prose could do with more work too). giggy (:O) 01:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long are FAC's allowed to be open for? I know there is this sourcing issue, but how long are we allowed to keep the FAC open for to fix the problems?? The Helpful One (Review) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (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_candidates/London/archive4&oldid=1138465950"