Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review.

I've had a quick skim, and there are two immediate issues that need to be covered - the first is that the article is missing a lot of citations - in the very least there needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph, otherwise that information is simply considered to be unreferenced.

Secondly, the references themselves need to be completed - at the moment the majority of them only have the title and the access date. These need to completed with as much information as possible from each source - the minimum I'd expect to see is the title, source and the access date. But if avaliable, then the author's details and the date it was published should also be included. I'm placing the review on hold for seven days while these fixes can be made. Miyagawa (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Question
and I have done some tidying on refs and added some that were missing. My question is: if a section or subsection is split into two or more paragraphs all supported by the same source, does the source have to be referenced at the end of each paragraph, or just the end of the section? Grateful for some guidance, as guidelines are confusing on this point. Thanks.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  22:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Each of the paragraphs need to be cited, even if it's to the same citation. In any given paragraph, you'd expect at least a citation placed right at the end of it. Miyagawa (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How are we doing?  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The obvious uncited parts are:

Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * the second sentence of History, ✅ (deleted, as no source can be found)
 * the fourth sentence and the James Haylett mention in Honours, (✅)
 * the contact details in Current operations (✔️) as well as the end sentence of that section,
 * second sentence of lifeguards, ✅
 * the Regions subsection, ✅
 * the end of the third and fourth (✅) paragraphs of Funding,
 * the Publications section, ✅
 * the initial Criticism line, also remove the italics from the quotes in Salvage.✅
 * Since you're already working through those, I would expect the History section to be fleshed out. While the subsections are good, I would expect the main section to cover the foundation of the RNLI and periods of major expansion in the very least. ✅ (history lead expanded)
 * Thanks, . I have taken the liberty of listing your comments so they can be ticked off once dealt with.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. :) Miyagawa (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Update
I hope between us, and I are getting nearer the target.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  23:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're getting there. Don't forget to fully format the citations - titles, authors (where avaliable), dates (where avaliable), publisher, access dates as a minimum. Miyagawa (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've done all I can now, having carefully been through the whole article again and improved or clarified text and citations where possible.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  12:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's a list of the citation formatting issues that remain:
 * (old no.)3: Needs a page number. ✅ (by deleting the info and ref - so changed ref nos below, up one) Also might be better in general to change to a citation/reference format with a separate section to list off the book details. If that all sounds complicated, then as long as you can get the page numbers in for the books then I'm happy to make the switch to that formatting as I've only just started using the harv template system myself.
 * 3: Missing a source (would just be the "Royal National Lifeboat Institution" or how you've formatted number 28) ✅
 * 4: Page number
 * 5: Drop the capitalisation on BBC NEWS to become BBC News. Also, since it's a news source, it'd be better to have BBC News in italics. ✅
 * 6: Same as number 3. ✅
 * 7: Page number.
 * 8: Page number.
 * 9: Page number.
 * 10: This one has a odd order in the formatting. Also needs the ISBN number. If you don't have it, run a search on www.worldcat.org, and that'll give you it. ✅
 * 11 is problematic - although the original source is obviously fine, the problem is that the publisher in this case isn't as it's an internet forum and the uploader has no evidence of reliability. ✅ (ref removed - see comment below)
 * 12: Yachting Monthly should be in italics. ✅
 * 13: Same as number 3. ✅
 * 14: Same as number 3. ✅
 * 15: Same as number 3. ✅
 * 16: Needs to have the source set as Aberystwyth Lifeboat. ✅
 * 17: Same as number 3. ✅
 * 18: Needs to have the source set as Open Charities ✅
 * 19: Same as number 3. ✅
 * 20: Page number.
 * 21: Needs to be formatted as if a book. ✅
 * 22: Same as number 3, (✅) but also needs an access date.
 * 24: Page number.
 * 26: Same as number 3. ✅
 * The remainder are much the same. Page numbers, access dates and missing source information. (✅) Miyagawa (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. I had no idea of the extent of it. Thanks.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some refs don't have page numbers as they are ebook online refs and I don't have access to the printed version. Does the ref then have to say "ebook" or is it not suitable as a source? Baffled of Blaenffos...  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  15:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Done a lot of those - the only ones I think are remaining are No. 11, and the books without page numbers or access dates. - Happysailor  (Talk) 17:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A few more bits - are we nearly there yet?  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  17:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Removed ref 11 (altering subsequent nos, but that shouldn't matter now) as the para is covered by the other refs, with more in the main linked article  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  17:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
We have done more tidying, but two issues remain:  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  18:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * access dates - I wasn't aware these were needed for published (printed) books, but only to demonstrate when a url was last current when a url is the source
 * page numbers on ebooks don't exist. What's the guideline on this?
 * Yep, don't do access dates on books. Sorry, should have made that clear. The ebooks thing is a real problem, I simply tend to avoid using them. Miyagawa (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think professionally published ebooks are ok, especially if there is a printed version. Printed versions usually come first, and ebooks later, often at the behest of the publisher in order to capture more of the readership. The only ebooks to be wary of are those that are self-published, and even some of those are reasonable sources if written by an expert. I know the publishing business quite well, so feel comfortable about using ebooks as a reference, with those qualifications. The only problem with using the ebook version (which is the only version online) is that there are no page numbers. I don't think that's a problem, though, as the printed version will be available to check if it's necessary. Given the url, the source can still be viewed.


 * Hope this means you can consider GA for this article. Cheers,  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the most significant single issue that remains is the use of multiple small subsections which makes the article look cluttered and unprofessional, and isn't recommended per MOS:BODY. Here is what I'd suggest:
 * Merge First World War and Second World War, leaving Dunkirk as a subsection of that. ✅
 * Merge Losses and Honours. ✅
 * Merge all the subsections under Lifeboats into that section. I think the whole lot would sit better simply in two paragraphs. ✅
 * Merge Equipment, Lifeboat crew, Lifeguards and Flood rescue team into a single section (Equipment and staff?) ✅
 * Merge Staff (under Infrastructure) into Regions. I'd simply take the text from Staff and use that first in the new combined section with the existing Regions line following after it. ✅
 * Merge Voluntary support into the new Equipment and staff section. ✅
 * Merge all the subsections under Women in the RNLI. ✅
 * Not sure if the point is made about the Independent lifeboats under Criticism. Was their creation direct criticism of the RNLI, because the section doesn't make mention of that. ✅ (removed)
 * Once those sections are tidied together (by which, each section should be laid out as described in MOS:BODY with standard size paragraphs, not with single lines dotted around etc), and that query answered then I'll look through for grammar etc. Don't worry, we're getting closer. Miyagawa (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean - more a narrative than a factsheet. I guess the contents list is the giveaway. I'll give it a go.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  10:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A good example of this sort of formatting is British Library which is already at Good Article level. Miyagawa (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done the above. Still looking for improvements in phraseology, etc. I thought Losses was noteworthy enough to stand on its own, but have merged a number of other components.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  16:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More amendments made tonight. How's it looking?  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's made a massive difference. I'll give it a read through in the next day and see if that brings up any queries/issues. After that, we should be ready for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the remaining points.
 * Merge the single line final paragraph of the lead into the second from last paragraph. It'll simply make it look neater.
 * Wartime: Link to World War I and World War II.
 * Dunkirk evacuation: Link to Dunkirk, Dover. Pipe a link to Hythe, Kent.
 * Personnel and equipment: Pipe a link to Personal flotation device for lifejacket. Link to 2000 Mozambique flood.
 * Infrastructure: Link to Saltash, St Asaph, and Stockton-on-Tees.
 * Remove the italics from "The Communications and Public Service Lifeboat Fund"
 * I think that's everything! Miyagawa (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All ✅, and thanks for your time, patience and advice.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  23:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Massive improvements in recent weeks seen here.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * All citations properly formatted, and all to reliable sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There's plenty of potential for further sub-articles here which would expand on the work here, so giving it a long view, there is sufficient coverage of the major points without going into minute detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Good illustrations, and no issues found with them.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent work, a very good job completed by all editors involved. Miyagawa (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Excellent work, a very good job completed by all editors involved. Miyagawa (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)