Talk:Edinburgh/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: John (talk · contribs) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, there appear to be some major problems with prose. I corrected some of the worst examples, but I feel sure there will be more. I will give a more detailed review later. For now, I oppose promoting this article.
 * I too oppose promoting the article. In fact, it deserves to be relegated to C-class status. I can hardly believe that after a severe pruning at the time of the recent review, the introductory section has been needlessly expanded yet again to an over-inflated length. For a start, the paragraph on education should be moved out and reconstituted as its own separate section on the subject. In my opinion, only Edinburgh University, because of its international status, merits a mention in a general introduction. I also question the accuracy of some of the introductory content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Kingdom of the Picts was not called "Scotland" (nor did it exist in the 10th century!), and "Alba" was the kingdom that resulted from the merger of the Scottish kingdom of Dalriada with the Pictish kingdom (for which we have no name beyond the Roman term "Caledonia"). Also, how can it be said that the Votadini culture originated with a hill-top fort (presumably meaning the Castle Rock, for which there is no hard archaeological evidence of a fortress), when Traprain Law is generally regarded as its centre? And what is "Scotland's cultural heart"? I hope that is not being claimed for Edinburgh. And why is there a European Renaissance link? Stirling has more claim to being Scotland's link to the Renaissance than anything in Edinburgh. Who ceded political power to London? The "fall" of the British Empire?? Is this new history in the making? What were the "economic struggles throughout the UK" after the Second World War? These phrases are far too crude and carry a distinct whiff of a Scottish nationalist agenda, e.g. "the prospect of becoming an international capital once again.". Who, apart from a small minority, is generally aware of "the Scottish Renaissance"? This whole section should be deleted or rewritten, but I can't be bothered attempting the latter, as I've already tried to prune this introduction twice to no avail. This is now a very bad introduction to the article. It doesn't even mention the salient fact that Edinburgh is the seat of the Scottish government. Who on earth deleted that? Finally, can someone tell me what "Edinburghese" means, where it comes from and on which planet it is used? Kim Traynor | Talk 14:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a shame that the intro lets down what is otherwise a good article. I personally propose removing all contentious material from the introduction, especially anything referring to Edinburgh's role in culture or politics, which basically constitutes the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs. A note in the geography section about how it has sprawled up around the Castle Rock would suffice for history, and its role as capital and tourism/ culture are covered elsewhere. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear! hear! Kim Traynor | Talk 16:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The section about educated populations and dynamic (I love that word) economies could also be cropped. I don't personally think it is especially true, and the sources are a bit dodgy. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether It is close to the sea, with a temperate climate, despite being on the same latitude as Moscow. should be added is also up for debate. (commented out in current version). Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd feel 50/50 on that one. It's not so much an essential fact as an observation which might add interest for anyone reading the article. Bit harsh on Moscow, however, and, having lived through the cold spell we've had recently, I think the difference might be overstated! Kim Traynor | Talk 16:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent as well - that's why I never put it in. I'll remove it from the markup. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was sad to see the buses go, because they are the most obvious form of transport (and I thought the picture well above the standard of so many boring bus shots). Clearly, it didn't work for you. If anything, it's the airport pic that isn't needed because the link suffices to take the reader to the airport's own page which features the same impressive photo. Kim Traynor | Talk 17:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So kind of you to reinstate the buses. Any particular reason for the one you chose? The previous shot featured a rather symbolic No.1 and explained the traditional livery. I like it because it shows a little bit of the city centre. This one is also good for that but unfortunately fuzzy; so I'd like to restore the original pic. Kim Traynor | Talk 17:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On a few more points, over which I'm not prepared to enter into edit wars, I thought that the previous statement ranking the size of the city in relation to other Scottish cities (though it hadn't been ranked within a UK framework) was more appropriate than the present statement regarding a wider urban area with a population of 850,000, which seems to me quite meaningless. Also, listing the names of seven hills in the intro seems a matter of local interest. If I was someone abroad reading the article, I couldn't give two hoots about what the hills are called. In any case, the list is given later in the geography section where it belongs. And again I think the education paragraph is not needed in an introduction to the city, except perhaps to mention its universities. Who cares if three colleges have merged to become one? We're not even given its name. These parochial statements should be removed, leaving in place the statements of more international significance. Kim Traynor | Talk 22:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the status of this review? It's been three weeks since it was begun, and the promised detailed review has not yet materialized. There appears to have been a great deal of work on the article in the interim. Please be sure that the review specifically addresses the good article criteria; it's unusual to see a bold "oppose" like a !vote in a GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The motto on the coat of arms is incorrect showing "domunus" rather than "dominus"
 * That puzzled me too. It looks like an obvious mistake, so I was wondering if it was an artist's way of copying the arms but avoiding breach of copyright by altering a detail to show it's not the genuine thing? Also, I wonder why the female figure appears sometimes as a blonde, and at other times as a brunette? Answers on a postcard please... Kim Traynor | Talk 00:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been asked to complete my review.
 * On reflection I have some doubts about the ethics of my reviewing it; I have 104 edits to the article. Nevertheless, I've started so I'll finish.

A good article should be:


 * Well-written: No. Examples include: "villages such as Juniper Green and Balerno sit on green belt land"; why "sit"? "Edinburgh Castle, perched atop the extinct volcanic crag" is tourist-agency speak. "Other notable places nearby include Greyfriars Kirkyard and the Grassmarket"; if it was not notable we would not note it here. This word should generally be avoided on a good article.


 * Verifiable with no original research: No. While progress has been made, there are large swathes of unreferenced material. Examples include: "The loss of traditional industries and commerce—the last shipyard closed in 1983—has resulted in economic decline over the years." and "Known in the 19th century for brewing, biscuits and books, Edinburgh's modern economy is largely centred around financial services, scientific research, higher education, and tourism." (the latter is particularly horrible writing as well!)


 * Broad in its coverage: Yes, no comments there.


 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Seems ok.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No. A lot of back-and-forth editing recently.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes. If anything, there are too many images and they slightly overwhelm the article.


 * Overall assessment: Fail.

--John (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Points noted. I've tried to improve upon offending phrases. The recent edit wars which affected the introduction were unexpected and, I think, untypical. Only point I feel I can't agree with is the number of images - usually one, sometimes two or even three per section - given the richness of the subject. Kim Traynor | Talk 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)