Wikipedia:Peer review/Dorset/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dorset[edit]

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we have ambitions to take the article to FA status.

Thanking you in advance--Ykraps (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spinningspark
  • The external links tool shows a number of dead and suspicious links. These need to be fixed, or alternative references found.
  • I recommend archiving web pages at a site such as WebCite to protect against link rot.
  • - Done
  • Images should have WP:ALT text for FA.
  • - Done, I think. This wasn't something I was familiar with previously.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Done but not sure if in the correct place.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flag is often unofficially named St Wite's Cross". This is not verified by the source which merely says that their own website used to call it this. Also, why is this site considered a RS?
  • - The Flag Institute note its other name so I will use that as a reference if that's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, facts in the infobox do not need citing if they are also in the body of the article, although many articles do. Before nominating for FA, you should at least thoroughly check that all facts are consistent with the article body and have a citation in place there.
lede
  • Poole and Weymouth are linked multiple times (there may be others, please check). It is acceptable to repeat a link in the lede and body, but not usually otherwise without good reason.
  • - Done
  • "...delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for up to 150 years" (two places). Slightly odd phrasing, would "delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for nearly 150 years" be just as accurate?
History
  • "The first human visitors to Dorset were Mesolithic". An expert archeological source is needed for this, it is unlikely to be true.
  • - Done Added a second source although I'm not sure why you find this unlikely. There is archaeological evidence of Mesolithic settlement at Portland, Dewlish and Cranborne. Cullingford is a professional historian with a first from King's and later while at Merton, specialised in the History of Dorset.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 600BC space needed. If desired, spaces can be prevented from breaking between lines with a non-breaking space (html code  ) or the template {{nowrap}}.
  • In the 12th-century civil war" the link is piped to a list. This should be disambiguated with a link to the intended target.
  • "The flagship San Salvador..." It does not appear to be true that she was a flagship, see here for instance.
  • - Done Changed to 'Spanish galleon' although it appears to be a moot point. The Wikipedia article also claims she was a flagship and, as one of the largest and most heavily armed, it seems likely she was.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Apparently the latest thinking is that she is not the San Salvador. I have updated the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is the second important error cited to Cullingford found so far. I would recommend finding alternative sources, or at least minimising use of this source to things he seems to have some expertise in.
  • - Noted but I'm not entirely convinced the errors are Cullingford's--Ykraps (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "slighting". This word is obsolete, according to the OED, except in professional historian's jargon. Replace with razing or demolition.
  • - Noted, however after some discussion we feel that this word is the one generally used in this context and most accurately describes the damage inflicted.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1645 some 5,000 angry civilians..." Can we have the location of this gathering please.
  • - Done Already given in the lead but agreed it should be noted in the main body of the article.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "74 were executed; 29 were hanged, drawn and quartered" is that 74 were executed including... or as well as.
  • "...was for many years the largest man-made harbour in the world". When did it cease to be so and why?
  • - I believe this was when the Jebel Ali port in Dubai was constructed (1976?). Portland is widely held to be the second largest at the moment although, depending on how you measure it, Zeebruge may also have a claim. Also I believe there is a port currently under construction in China(?) that will soon put Jebel Ali in the shade. I didn't want to put all this in the article because not only would it have been too long but would also have required the reader to extrapolate the information from three different references. Perhaps we should consider changing the sentence to "When built.....", which can easily be referenced from a single source.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portland, Weymouth and Poole harbours were the main embarkation points on D-Day" Another possible Cullingford exaggeration, please check other sources, this map seems to indicate that Dorset was the embarkation point for the Omaha Beach landings, but this was only one of five on D-Day.
  • - It also shows Poole to be the embarkation point for Utah beach. I think 'main' in this context is in reference to the amount of troops, half a million from Portland alone. The harbours in Dorset were chosen as the 'main' embarkation points not just because of their size but also because of their close proximity to the Cotentin peninsula. I will consider how to make this sentence less contentious. Done - Simply removed 'the'.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bournmouth is multiply linked
Settlements
  • "Bournemouth and Christchurch were transferred to within Dorset" remove "within", it is superfluous and clunky.
Physical geography
  • "...an enormous variety of landscapes determined by the underlying geology." Landscape is not just determined by underlying geology, there are many other factors: glaciation, weathering, river and sea erosion etc. For the same reason, geology of Dorset might be better described as a see also rather than main article.
  • - This means that the enormous variety of landscapes is caused by the underlying geology and not the other factors you mention. I will have a think about how to make this clearer. Done Changed to, "wide variety of underlying geology that is partly responsible for the diverse landscape".--Ykraps (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost every type of rock from early Jurassic to the mid-Tertiary..." Jurassic and Tertiary are geological periods, not types of rock.
  • - I read that to mean that every rock from within that period is to be found in Dorset. I will consider how to make this less ambiguous. Done It appears that user:MasterOfHisOwnDomain has already fixed this.--Ykraps (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "non-resistant" should be explained
  • - Done. Simpler to remove.--Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting of conversions needs to be consistent. So far I have seen (277 metres / 909 feet), 8 km/5 mi, and 900 mm (35 in). All different.
  • - Done Changed so all conversions appear in brackets, 900 mm (35 in) for example. This appears to be the format favoured by Somerset, a featured article.--Ykraps (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The county has one of the highest proportion of conservation areas..." Agreement problem
  • - Can you be a little more specific? Is the agreement problem with the reference or with other information in the article?--Ykraps (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Climate
  • 1541–1885 hours. Inconsistent use of commas as number delimiters.
  • Consider adding a climate chart such as in Essex
Demography
  • In the table, consistent use of periods in abbreviations: C.C., but UA. Also, the abbreviations should be defined somewhere, either as a bracket after first use of the term in running text, a wikilink to the appropriate article, or a footnote. Same problem in Economy section.
  • - Done. Probably less messy to write out in full.--Ykraps (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • - and Christchurch. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...a decline in its population caused by continuing negative rates of natural increase..." A difficult clause to parse and almost a truism.
  • - This really needs to be read in context with the rest of the paragraph. This was, albeit temporary, a complete reversal in trend and (in my opinion) well worth including. A change in population such as this can be the result of a number of factors and an explanation of the cause is necessary. Believe me, if you were into this sort of thing, you would find this very exciting! :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • per 1000. Inconsistent use of commas. This is per 1000 per year and should be explained somewhere, perhaps in a footnote, or perhaps on first use.
  • - There is already a link to the Wikipedia article on birth rates, which explains how they are calculated. Is this sufficient, or do you think it needs to explained in the text also?--Ykraps (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
  • "West Dorset, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, Christchurch and Weymouth and Portland". Serial comma required as there are two "and"s in the list.
  • - Perhaps he threw his job description in a bin [[1]]. :) I have added a reference.--Ykraps (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN.118 is an unannotated map which requires a degree of WP:SYNTH to interpret.
  • - Are we looking at the same thing? FN.118 is a Daily Telegraph article regarding the 2009 Dorset local elections.
Economy and industry
  • "...increase in permanent grass and land set aside." If set-aside is meant, it should be linked. Does "grass" mean grass set-aside and what is the difference to land set-aside?
  • - Done. Permanent grass is always grass and never cultivated for crops. Because it is never cultivated, it cannot be set aside. I have added a comma and linked set-aside.
  • "...up to £74M GVA for the area." Inconsistent representation of millions.
  • - Done
  • "Dorset has little manufacturing industry, at 10.3% of employment in 2008. This was slightly above the average for Great Britain..." This seems somewhat contradictory - "little manufacturing", but "above average". The Birmingham article puts manufacturing at 10% of employment and this is the city that used to be called the workshop of the world. I wonder if this figure is merely a reflection of the general trend in the country as a whole in recent decades rather than something specific to Dorset. What is more the sources cited are government statistics which merely give the figures without any commentary. Further, the figure given is not supported by the source FN.122 which has 11.9%, seemingly indicating just the opposite.
  • - 11.9% is for the administrative county. When the two U.A.s are included, the percentage of manufacturing for the county as a whole drops to 10.3%. The sum is shown hidden in the text and supported by the three following references. You are correct that there has been a decline in industry across the UK and 10.3% is above average, but that doesn't stop it being a small amount. Comparison with Birmingham, which is a city, is unfair; manufacturing in the West Midlands stands at 13.8%. See also Derbyshire (20.4%), East Staffordshire (20.9%), Cumbria (17.1%). --Ykraps (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is just one statistic I checked at random because the claim seemed a little strange. In view of that result, it would be a good idea before FA to do a more thorough trawl of the accuracy of numerical data in the article. FAC is very hot on verifying against sources nowadays, especially where the nominator has not previously had succesful FAs. You are likely to have a hard time at FA if failed verifications of that sort are noticed, even if you put them right promptly. Once the error has been highlighted on the FAC page the damage has been done and people will be leaning to oppose more than they would have otherwise.
  • - Noted, however I hope some of your fears have been addressed--Ykraps (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Culture
  • "Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra which was founded in 1893.[149]" Fails verification
  • Done - Supported by FN.150 which has now been added to end of the sentence. Barret (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Dorset County Museum in Dorchester was founded in 1846" Fails verification
  • "Dorset contains 190 Conservation Areas, more than 1,500 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, over 30 registered parks and gardens and 12,850 listed buildings, many of which—over 6,000—are in the west of the county.[157][158]" Fails verification. FN.157 is dead and FN.158 does not seem to contain any relevant information.
  • - Again, I think you must be looking at something different. This sentence is supported by FN.162 and 163.--Ykraps (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Sorry – I updated FN.157 which contained a dead link but forgot update this list. FN.158 (now 163) contains relevant info at the bottom of the link. I've also trimmed the sentence. Barret (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of the 229 that are Grade I listed, 174 are churches or places of worship,[159]" It takes some WP:SYNTH of FN.159 to extract this fact. Also FN.159 appears to be the work of a single individual, and has no official status so its qualfication as WP:RS is questionable.
  • - Done Rewritten sentence to remove the need for this dubious source.--Ykraps (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am stopping the review of the culture section here. Nearly every fact I have tried to verify from the cited sources has proved to be problematic. The whole section needs rewriting from scratch from reliable sources so further review is pointless.
Transport and Education sections
  • Not reviewed. It has become clear that this article needs some serious work on referencing and is therefore likely to change substantially. Further review now would be a wasted effort.
References
  • I have not examined the references in detail for reliability. The many problems found incidentally are enough to show that you should thoroughly review and improve the referencing before submitting for FA.
  • Books which are too old to have an ISBN should be referenced to some other catalogue index. For instance, http://www.worldcat.org/ will provide an OCLC number for most books which can be added with a link via the {{OCLC}} template.
  • - Thanks for the tip, although all the books used for referencing the article, do have ISBN numbers.--Ykraps (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dorset/archive3&oldid=1075158840"