Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Senedd/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 25 July 2009.

Senedd

 * Nominator(s): Seth Whales (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already passed as a Good Article, and has had a Peer Review. It is my first ever nomination for FA, so all advice will be gratefully received. Seth Whales (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: Generally everything's good. The only fair use image is File:Axonometric drawing of the Senedd.jpg, and I find the rationale entirely satisfactory. The only image I'm not sure of is File:Floor of the Siambr (Senedd building).jpg. UK freedom of panorama law, while very liberal, does not apply to "graphic works", only to "works of artistic craftsmanship". The best clarification I am able to find on this is that most two dimensional art is considered a "graphic work"; however, anything which would require the creator to be both an artist and a craftsman is a "work of artistic craftsmanship". In short, I'm not really sure about this image, though I'm leaning towards thinking that it might need to be used under fair use. Other views, especially from people with a stronger grasp of UK freedom of panorama rules, welcome. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly no expert on UK freedom of panorama rules, but the creator was both the artist and a craftsman. Also the artwork is not strictly speaking 2D, as it is domed. Seth Whales (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some more looking into this, and my slightly more informed opinion is that that art probably is eligible for freedom of panorama. I'd still defer to anybody who seemed to really know what they were talking about on this point, but for the time being I'd say that the images are good to go. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
 * Done


 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return
 * Done


 * What makes http://www.axisweb.org/pbCOMM.aspx?SID=15824 a reliable source?
 * Done, changed to National Assembly for Wales site for reference.


 * Likewise http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Politics&F=1&id=14495?
 * Done changed to Charles, Prince of Wales site for reference.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done...hopefully this is okay. If you feel they need better explanations, then please let me know. Seth Whales (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They look good. I did one little tweak to get it to work. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I wasn't sure if Senedd had any connection with Corus, so I put a link with Sened instead. Hope this is okay? Seth Whales (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Was this fixed? The dab link checker still reveals one dab. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Corus has no connection with the Senedd so I do not understand why it needs to have a disambiguation link?? Seth Whales (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So should it be delinked? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How is that done? Seth Whales (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The offending link is in ref 73 (publisher). Do you know which "Corus" published the article? If not, delink it. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I had worked it out a few seconds before your note....thanks for your help. Seth Whales (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Oriel "Hall" ("Gallery") would appear to be an English loan-word, from Oriel window. Even if this is not true, it should be clarified. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have used the BBC English - Welsh dictionary at www.bbc.co.uk to confirm that gallery is English for the Welsh word, oriel. I agree the history of the English word would appear to come from Oriel window from various sources. However, the Welsh word oriel, is commonly translated as gallery (see above), and more commonly used as in art gallery, also many sources available. Therefore I am happy to use the BBC translation, however if you want me to do further work on this, please let me know. Seth Whales (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please indicate that Welsh oriel is a loan word (or, if true, add a note that it comes independently from Anglo-Norman). Not only is this helpful to the reader, it will save you the trouble of watching well-meaning readers "fix" it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added the Oriol with a reference against Oriel, hope this clarifies this point. Seth Whales (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That should be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, support. It is a worthy representative of Wikipedia, and better than most of what FA approves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 1a and MoS issues. It's not bad, but a lot of fit and finish is needed along with attention to grammar.
 * The lead image isn't great, photographically-speaking. It emphasizes the underside of the overhang, rather than the more interesting archetectural features of the building. I would almost recommend getting rid of it and replacing it with something more compelling.
 * ICT: The standard format is to provide the full name, followed by the acronym in parens.
 * "because the National Assembly did not have an independent cost of the project" Worded badly. "have a ... cost" is awkward, and the meaning of "independent cost" is unclear.
 * Adding appraisal, although the text quoted may be idiom in Wales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The places where it looks like you turned lists into prose are riddled with punctuation problems. Also, some of them have serial commas and some don't.
 * Penchant for using the vague "with" connector, where a better replacement is available. Examples (there are many more):
 * "The two disagreed on the valuation of the site, with Davies offering what was believed to be the market price ..."
 * "24 proposals were received, with 14 from the private sector ..."
 * "Before deciding on Capital Waterside as the site of the National Assembly, Davies announced on 13 March 1998 that an international competition would be held to select the design of the debating chamber building, with the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) overseeing ..."
 * In the first two, with can probably be removed entirely - I don't think it can be replaced; the last seems unobjectionable.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All three have been recast as independent clauses by the nom. Probably just as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MoS problems with inconsistent logical quotation. Ex. "Davies wanted a building 'to capture the imagination of the Welsh people.'" but then "Rhodri Morgan, Assembly Member (AM) had called the whole project 'a dog's dinner'."
 * There is no consensus on logical quotation (and never has been) - the inconsistent appearance it produces is one reason why; controversy over this is why MOS is presently protected.
 * Perhaps more significantly, the examples quoted are logical quotation. In the first case, the period is in the original source; in the second it isn't.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And much more. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.