Talk:Pembrokeshire/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. Comments to follow in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 19:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some general comments before I get down to a detailed scrutiny of the text.

Links

I struggle with your rationale for adding or not adding blue links:

"County town" is not linked in the lead, but is linked in the main text Done

There are some topics that I'd expect to see linked but aren't:

Done

Pembrokeshire County Council
Cretaceous Period
Carboniferous period
nonconformists
Church in Wales

And some topics are linked twice or more within the main text:

Done

Haverfordwest
Milford Haven
Preseli Hills
Carmarthenshire
Pembroke Dock
Fishguard
Caldey Island
Ramsey Island
Grassholm Island
Skomer Island
Llys y Fran
Stephen Crabb

Place names

If, as it appears, you are following the line that place names are in Welsh in the Welsh article and English in the English, why add a stray translation for Mynydd Preseli? – Tim riley talk 20:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done[reply]

Comments on the text[edit]

Info-box
- Two of the topics are a bit perplexing: you have to click on "Area rank – Ranked 5th" Done or "Population Rank – Ranked 13th" Done to discover that they mean compared with other parts of Wales. (I realise this may be the fault of those who concocted the info-box rather than yours, but I mention it here anyway. If there's nothing you can do about it, fair enough.)
Lead
- Percentages (in lead and later): I don't propose to press the point, but the Manual of Style prescribes the words "per cent" rather than the "%" symbol in the text. (Symbol is OK in tables etc.) Leaving the symbols as they are will not be an obstacle to promotion to GA, but if, as I see from the talk page, you are thinking of FA in due course I'd advise replacing the symbols throughout before you go to FAC. Done
- I am not at all clear about the linguistic point. I cannot be sure whether you are saying that in the north more people speak Welsh than speak English or merely that there are more people in the north than in the south who speak Welsh. The section of the main text dealing with this point makes me think you mean the latter, but even there it is not really clear. What would be helpful, if you can find them, are figures showing the first languages of the people in the north and south of the county. Done (figures difficult to come by, but hopefully clarified)
- Lead – general: it will pass muster for GA, but if you do go on with FA in mind, you'll need to beef the lead up quite a bit. It's rather thin at the moment (e.g. "The county has a diverse geography and a complex history" and not a word more about either.)

I'm of the same mind, and will look at this later, if the GA review doesn't depend on it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography
- The source link to the Met Office in the climate chart box is broken. You'll need a replacement to substantiate the data in the box. Done
Coastline and landscape
- A viking wreck – the Wikipedia article capitalises "Viking" and I'd be inclined to follow suit here. Done
Oil and gas
- a controversial pipeline – rather unhelpful to call something controversial without a word or two explaining why it was (is?) so. Done
Culture
- There seem to be some glaring omissions under this heading. Is there no music in the county? No theatre? No gallery or museum (other than one for motor cars)? The criteria for GA do not require complete comprehensiveness of coverage, but a "Culture" section that ignores music, theatre, art and heritage is pushing matters more than somewhat. Done (more could be found, I'm sure)
Cuisine
- I'm not buying the local tourist board as a reliable source. The word "biased" leaps to mind. If this section is to remain, the quote – mere puffery – must go, and you need to find a proper citation for the proposition that Pembrokeshire is "well known for its excellent food".

My response to this is to drop the subsection for now until Cuisine of Pembrokeshire can be fixed. Is this acceptable? Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A sensible solution, it seems to me. Tim riley talk 08:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education and health
- "but suffers from the library service not having a catalogue of the CDs in stock" – is this really of encyclopedic importance? Done
Images
- The Manual of Style bids us include alt-text for the benefit of blind or partially-sighted users who rely on screen readers. I hope you will do so for this article. Done
References
- There's rather a hotchpotch of styles, but the main requirement of citations is met: one can see where the information is from and where it can be verified. So OK for GA, but again, if you go to FAC you'll need to get your references into a uniform style – making sure pp and p all have full stops after them, inclusion and hyphenation of ISBNs (and changing 10 digit ones to 13 digit: I kid you not!), stating the source within the citation (e.g refs 2, 4, 5 etc).

I have noted this. Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Ref 81: broken. Done

I think we are heading in the right direction (and I am greatly enjoying the article) but there's a bit to do yet before it quite qualifies for GA. As you were so quick off the mark dealing with my preliminary comments I shan't bother putting the review on hold for a week unless you would prefer me to do so. – Tim riley talk 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, for dealing with this so quickly. We should be able to sort out most, if not all of these in the next day or so; I imagine there will be more from you after that. On the FA point, this only came up recently and is not in our (at least my) sights yet; I'll be happy to clear this hurdle first. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I think I have sorted all this as best I can; I know there are some areas where improvements can be made - see my comments. Time for bed, I think! Look forward to hearing from you when you can. Tony Holkham (Talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch of comments

This is coming together very well. I shall be promoting the article, but before I do, may I make a couple of minor points that I missed on my first perusal, and quibble further about points already made?

Duplicate links
- Milford Haven is still linked five times. Done
Lead
- "the only coastal national park of its kind" – it isn't absolutely clear what "of its kind" means. I took it to refer to the fact that although some other national parks have coastal bits, this one is all coast. Checking, on rereading, I see that the Wikipedia article on the national park calls it "the only one in the United Kingdom to have been designated primarily because of its spectacular coastline", and I think something on those lines would make things clearer here. Done
- Language: you've clarified the matter in the main text, but the lead is still ambiguous. I think if you changed "Welsh being more widely spoken in the north, and English in the south" to "Welsh being more widely spoken in the north than in the south" it would make the position clear. In passing, I don't press the point but I was a little surprised to find no mention of "Little England beyond Wales" in the language section of the main text, or even possibly in the lead.

We have steered clear of the "Little England" topic because it can be contentious, with all Pembrokeshire people considering themselves Welsh, irrespective of their first language, and to some the designation is distatsteful; it is in any case hardly used now. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box
- You've found a good way of dealing with the problem identified above. One other point: is there a reason to show the political parties of the MPs but not of the AMs and the MEP? Done
Alt-text
- I've tweaked. Screen readers will read out the existing captions, so it's no help simply to repeat them. What is wanted is a short description (rather than title) of what is depicted.

Thank you. I get it now. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I look forward to cutting the ribbon very soon. Tim riley talk 08:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've missed anything. Is all OK now? Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I enjoyed this article, and hope you will develop it with FA in mind. If you do so, please ping me when you go to peer review or FAC. Tim riley talk 11:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, for such a quick and fair review. Will do. Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Tony!
Very well-deserved award. You must be feeling proud and, with all that "burning the midnight oil", exhausted.
I am delighted and glad to have been involved. Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]