Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Covering of the Senne/1

Covering of the Senne

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: List as GA. The latest two recommendations support listing the article. No further comments have been received, and there appears to be no ongoing insistance on renomination. Geometry guy 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

While the reviewer left many constructive suggestions which have been implemented, was overly pedantic and insisted on changes which would have been to the detriment of the article.  Oreo Priest  15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Indeed, per my closing comment, “only minor changes are needed for a successful nomination”. Article remains in violation of WP:ENGVAR AND WP:TRITE.  Nominator refused to make simplest of changes (e.g.  characterized to characterised) or present cooperative alternatives to suggestions.  The nonsense assertion that such changes are a "detriment of the article" would be true if, and only if, author is violating WP:OWN.  I’d gladly vote to pass the article once the remaining policy – not pedantic - changes are made.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Renominate at GAN, following a final copy edit. I see no blatant violations of WP:TRITE, although I'll have to re-read the article to be certain. I can't comment on WP:ENGVAR issues other than to note that Canadian English is acceptable. The article needs minor wordsmithing. Example: "Delayed by war and the work being done on the North-South Junction, this was only finished in 1955" That's a passive gerundive construction better suited for Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Majoreditor (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having read Commentarii de Bello Gallico while studying Latin, that comment put a smile on my face. I've fixed the offending sentence. - Oreo Priest  12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification. There's no issue with Canadian English (odd, though, that it’s used in an article about a Belgian public works project with predominately French sources).  The issue is consistency.  For example, British English would always use “standardise”, American English would always use “standardize” and Canadian English would be allowed to use either.  Canadian English, however, must use whichever one it chooses consistently in a given “document”, which is where WP:ENGVAR comes in.  This article switches between spelling “systems”, which is where I have issue.  WP:TRITE says “Articles should use only necessary words”, which is where self-evident (and thus unnecessary) phrasing such as “was only finished” and “should finally be capable” is inappropriate.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside: actually, even in England, the OED favours -ize in words such as "standardize" which are derived by adding the suffix to a noun. Even more incidentally, the term "British English" makes no sense. English is the language spoken in England. The variant of the language spoken in Scotland is called Scots. There is no such thing as "British English". Geometry guy 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The semantics argument is unnecessary and inappropriate; phrasing of “British” English is per this article and seems less silly than, say, “Queen’s” English and it is still understood what is meant. That aside, the OED is a good point and one of which I had not been aware.  Thank you for the articulation.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. As for the double digression, I was being a bit provocative, I admit. The term "Queen's English" is certainly worse, and covers even less of the British Isles than the "English of England" does. Geometry guy 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate this discussion had to spill over to here. If you reread WP:TRITE, you'll notice that it says This requires not that the writer ... avoid all detail ... but that every word tell, not to remove adverbs. These words do tell, which is why I object to their removal. As for WP:OWN, the suggestion is unfair; I have made the vast majority of changes you requested and this is not an issue of control or authorship. - Oreo Priest  12:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you made that point. I commonly use the -ize endings everywhere else but when writing for wikipedia;, but apparently we Brits don't/shouldn't spell that way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm not here. You didn't see me here, and I didn't say or do anything here. But I was surprised to see G-guy say there's no such thing as British English. You'll have to tell that to all my linguistics profs, Guy. Or go to your library for a copy of World Englishes. ;-) I'm not leaving now, because I was never here. I have no home, I am the wind. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the covering of the Senne has been stagnant for a week now. What should I do? Feel free to remove this out of place comment. - Oreo Priest  13:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My answer is: Not only is it stagnant, it is decidedly unresolved. It's a good thing you said something; some eager beaver mighta archived it or something... I really don't see any !voting taking place, aside from the implicit vote of the reviewer who failed it... I dunno; it looks good to me. Does the WP:LEDE summarize the main points of the article? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer myself, no the lede doesn't seem to fulfill WP:LEDE. Entire sections such as "Controversy and opposition" go unmentioned (though they need only a sentence or at most two in the lede). I'm voting Conditional promote. I know an industrious editor such as you (judging by the talk page) will fix that lede in a jiffy. I'll check back in a couple days. later. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sentence added. What do you think now? - Oreo Priest  17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No action. I support the fail of this article: for example the lead lacks structure. When it is improved, it can be renominated, but there is no action to be taken at this GAR. Geometry guy 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to redo the intro a bit, but the changes are fairly minor. Would you mind giving some specific issues that need to be fixed so that I can address them? Thanks,  Oreo Priest  11:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. The lead should be a concise summary of the article. That suggests to me that it should also discuss the attempts at purification, expand a little bit on the controversy and embezzlement scandal (although I broadly agree with Ling, I think it would be good to explain why the scandal led to delays), and discuss the modern purification work. The last sentence of the lead is slightly awkward: it might be better to expand on this in the body of the article rather than a footnote: also, is there a source for this observation that few tourist guides mention the covered river?
 * I hope that helps. Cheers, Geometry guy 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I somehow didn't notice the deficiencies in the lead until you pointed them out. I've added a bunch of the more recent developments to the lead, and I think it feels a lot better now. I deleted the questionably sourced sentence as it doesn't really seem to fit into the lead or article anymore. What do you think now? - Oreo Priest  18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Now it looks like a lead; it smells like a lead; it is a lead. I made a couple of tweaks: if I introduced any errors of fact, judgement, or point of view, please correct them. Then we can see if there is some consensus to close this GAR. Geometry guy 23:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. No errors were introduced and the style was cleaned up a bit. I'm happy. - Oreo Priest  09:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * List as GA. I have changed my mind in the light of substantial improvements since this article was brought to GAR. The article received an excellent review by one of GAs most thorough reviewers, Elcobbola. The remaining issues were relatively minor: I agree with Majoreditor that there are not significant problems with WP:TRITE, and in any case, that is a MoS issue which is not among the issues which are emphasised by criterion 1(b). Subsequently, at this GAR, the article has received further reviews, which have revealed additional issues, but these have been fixed thanks to efforts of Oreo Priest. This article has now been subject to sufficient scrutiny that a renomination is unnecessary. It clearly should be listed. Geometry guy 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've again played with the image placement, I think it's a little tidier now. - Oreo Priest  22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)