Talk:Aberdaron/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "Bardsey Island; the coastal area around Porthor; and the nearby villages of Anelog, Llanfaelrhys, Penycaerau, Rhoshirwaun, Rhydlios, Uwchmynydd and Y Rhiw are included in the community." The punctuation of this sentence looks very strange.

Reworded.♦ Skinsmoke (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• The balance of the lead is wrong. This article is about a village/community, yet the lead talks almost exclusively about the coastal landscape.

Introduction expanded. I don't think you can explain the rise in tourism without reference to the various awards/designations that attract those tourists. Hopefully, the revised wording goes some way towards doing that. The designations cover the inland landscape and architecture of the villages, in addition to the coastal scenery.♦ Skinsmoke (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

History

• "... in the last phase the ramparts were deliberately flattened". The ramparts of what?

Fixed.♦ Skinsmoke (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Geography

• "At the mouth of the bay stand two islands, Ynysoedd Gwylanod, composed of Ynys Gwylan-fawr and Ynys Gwylan-fach". How can islands be composed? Composed of what?

Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy

• "Sheep have been raised in the Llŷn Peninsula for over a thousand years, and wool exports have been important throughout history." I can't quite make sense of that. Is "throughout history" longer or shorter than "over a thousand years"?

Reworded.♦ Skinsmoke (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Fleeces were spun at home by local people". You don't spin a fleece.

Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Demography

• "... 18.7 per cent were over 65 years of age". Not quite, they were 65 years of age or older.

Reworded.♦ Now states over 64 years of age. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Uwchmynydd

• "... the hut contains an exhibition". An exhibition of what?
  • To the natural history of the area. Added. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Rhiw

• "Bwlch y Garreg Wen at Y Rhiw, built in 1731, is a "croglofft cottage" ..." Is "croglofft cottage" really the Welsh term? Croglofft I can understand, but cottage?

Fixed (I think).♦ Skinsmoke (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Education

• "In the early 19th century a school for the education of poor children was held". How do you "hold" a school?

Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In the modern sense we tend to use school in the sense of a building, but that is not necessarily correct. A school is also the activity that goes on within the building (or, in this case, several buildings). Churches are still often said to hold a Sunday school on their premises. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Culture

• "... petitions were sent to the Department of Health demanding that a licence be granted to Griffith and his cousin". A licence for what?

Clarified.♦ Added the word medical to descibe licence.

References

• There are at least two dead links.[1]

Fixed. There are also two links which show up as "Server error" on the list, but are working fine in reality.♦ Skinsmoke (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are several books cited, but no page numbers for any of them. It's not particularly useful ti know, for instance, that John Cantrell's The Lleyn Peninsula Coastal Path: A Walking and Cycle Touring Guide has 224 pages. What we need to know is which page(s) support whatever it is being cited.

• It's generally more useful to give author names as last name, first name.
  • That has now been done through using template:citebook. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Encyclopaedia Britannica really isn't an appropriate source for a wikipedia article.
  • Sorry I'd have to strongly disagree there. Britannica is regarded as a reliable source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You may of course disagree as much as you like, but you're wrong. Britannica is a tertiary source, just like wikipedia, and the article should be depending on the same sources that Britannica does. There's a case to be made for specialist encyclopedias, but not for general ones like Britannica or Encarta. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The difference is Britannica articles are traditionally supposed to be written by academics who have authority/credibility in their given fields. Therefore they are generally regarded as credible sources. Wikipedia is written by amateurs whose credentials are not given. It is only recent Britannica has been accepting wiki technology to try to fight a losing battle against wikipedia. You could argue that many other decent publications are tertiary sources. But if I am mistaken, "wrong", then why is Britannica used as a source in thousands of articles, including featured work, and why is it that we have thousands of articles based primarily on the 1911 Britannica?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
        • We have many articles that are copies of the 1911 Britannica because it's now in the public domain, simple as that. So far as this article is concerned though I don't intend to insist that the Britannica is replaced by a reliable secondary source as I don't think that the material it's supporting is sufficiently important to make a fuss about, at GA level anyway. I would oppose any article at FAC that used Britannica as a source though. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, just surprised you picked up on it that's all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Not everything I may comment on is to do with the GA criteria; some suggestions are just to make a better article, which is hopefully what we all want. Perhaps I ought to make it clearer in some way what are sticking points and what are merely suggestions. Maybe different colours for each? Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• The formatting of many of the online refs is unusual in listing the publisher before the title of the page; it should be the other way round.

If you could wait a few days until the refs are fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I haven't looked at the article for a while, but I think we must be nearly there now. Let me know when you've done. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job to all who helped with the referencing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 23 OctobWelsh Sea Kayaking: Fifty Great Sea Kayak Voyages.er 2010 (UTC)

Can I echo that. I was having trouble finding the time (or inclination, as I was suffering from flu) to have a go at the referencing. Everyone's help was enormously appreciated. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:Gruffydd ap Cynan.jpg. T. Prytherch didn't die until 1916, so the PD claim of "life of the author plus 100 years" can't be true.
  • Switched the PD claim to US 1921. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where are we now?

• This review has now been open for almost a month and needs to be closed one way or another, but work seems to have stalled. In an effort to finish it off I decided to go looking for the few citations still without page numbers, but I immediately came across another problem. Krawiecki & Biggs' Welsh Sea Kayaking: Fifty Great Sea Kayak Voyages is available in limited preview on Google Books, from which it appears that nowhere does it support the information in the article that it's claimed it does. This is a serious problem that casts doubt on the rest of the article's sourcing. I'll leave this review open for one more day to allow time for this to be sorted out. Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the Google preview has changed since the article was written (the Llŷn chapter was previously previewed), and a trip to a decent library is going to be necessary to obtain the page number. Unfortunately, I'm not able to make a trip into Manchester Central Library at the moment due to health problems. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I'm going to have to take a view on this. There are probably about half a dozen {{page needed}} citations that really ought to be sorted out in some way, but in my estimation the information they're sourcing is generally tangential to the main story of Aberdaron (date of opening of a chapel for instance), so I'm not going to insist that the page numbers are supplied for this review to succeed. I'm sure when you're feeling yourself again Skinsmoke you'll slot them in as and when. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.