Talk:Edinburgh/GA4

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article and list queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd remove paras 3 and 5 from the lead though leave in the bit on being 2nd most popular tourist destination and tack it on para 4


 * new introduction created in an attempt to keep to essentials


 * With burgh charters granted by David I and Robert the Bruce, Edinburgh grew through the Middle Ages as Scotland’s biggest merchant town "grew through the Middle Ages into Scotland’s biggest merchant town"?
 * now gone Kim Traynor | Talk 09:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Was the term Dunedin ever used? I know it ended up as the name of the NZ city....
 * still the normal name for Gaelic speakers, but not used in English speech Kim Traynor | Talk 09:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * and around this time the Edinburgh region passed to the Angles. - " control of the region"? or somesuch?
 * changed to Lothian, which is a more precise term Kim Traynor | Talk 09:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * earning it the nickname "Athens of the North" because of its many classical buildings and reputation as a "hotbed of genius" (Smollett) similar to Ancient Athens - can we take teh Smollett out of brackets and convert it into prose to clarify the relevance of his mention?


 * Smollett reference has been rephrased to be more specific Kim Traynor | Talk 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, is divided into distinct areas that retain their original character - why are we mentioning it is the capital here?
 * that phrase now removed Kim Traynor | Talk 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Areas section and following nneds more inline references.


 * compare favourably --> are milder (more neutral tone)
 * actioned as per suggestion Kim Traynor | Talk 09:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: - NPOV-peacockish prose identified which is uncorrected, including substantial amounts of lead. Fragmented prose not consolidated into paragraphs.
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources: - most (but not all) of the prose has inline references.
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required: superficially
 * No original research: not checked as prose issues are outstanding.

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused: - undue weight given to awards (e.g. in lead) which are important for tourism and business but not so much for an encyclopedia.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias: - see above prose issues

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): - not clear - some recent issues with lead

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - not actually that far off GA really I suspect, but no attempt made to look at GAN comments raised by me in over seven days. Other regular editors aware but declining to take part. Hence no consensus to list as GA at this time and this can be examined at later date. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to the drawing-board! In the light of the above comments, I have taken the bold step, not to say liberty of completely replacing the existing over-long and detailed introduction with a more concise one, stripped down to what I regard as the bare essentials. If this proves acceptable to a consensus, I would suggest that anyone feeling a vital detail has been lost in the process should incorporate it into the appropriate section of the main text dealing with the particular subject, whether that be education, festivals or whatever. I have made this appeal before, but it failed to have the desired effect, and the intro ended up overinflated again. However, the article will never settle until it is recognised that it is in nobody’s interest to overload the intro, especially with hype that seems inspired by an understandable but unrestrained civic patriotism. Kim Traynor | Talk 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the good thing about GA or FA in that it provides a "consnensus/stable version" so that it can be reverted to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been through the article attempting to improve the readability and flow of the text. Some passages have been restructured and some cut. It's up to others now whether they feel the template at the top of the page can be removed and whether the article should again be nominated for GA Review. Kim Traynor | Talk 18:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can see the problem. The new intro, which to my mind was a big improvement on the old, has been thrown out and the older intro restored, despite the recommendations above. So, we are yet again back to square one. It seems pointless trying to improve this article against such obstinacy. I'll certainly not be wasting more time on it after this reversion, and regret now that I've spent almost two whole days attempting to improve it. Kim Traynor | Talk 20:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just reverted that...which now makes me a contributor and not really able to review. This page is closed and we should continue article discussion at the generic talk page. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)