Wikipedia:Peer review/Navenby/archive2

===Navenby=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd love for it to be a Featured Article one day
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Seahamlass (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Navenby/archive2.

Comments from
Hello Seahamlass, here are some comments which may help you on your quest for one of those little bronze stars...! That's a good start for you. Let me know if you need anything more from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HEAD, you should avoid over-capitalising, so "Early History" should be "Early history" etc.*:Done
 * Any chance of making the co-ordinates at the top of the page read in degrees, minutes, seconds with a N for north and W for west? I think you can modify it to be coords dms if memory serves...*:Not doneSorry: Really sorry, can't work out how to.
 * The WP:MOS recommends that you don't "squeeze" text between two images. With thirty images on this page, it's probably over-illustrated so try to avoid having images squashing the text.*:Done
 * "Chapel Lane" - why italics? same with all the other italics in the early history section, is there a good reason for using italics here? Reply: Sorry - thought I had to do that to street names, have now removed the italics*:Done
 * Curiously, despite my previous point, I would think that "Nafni+by" should be, at least, in quotations perhaps also italicised.*:Done
 * "October 17th" - October 17 or 17 October, but ditch the "th" - see WP:DATE.*:Done
 * Ref [15] is used twice for the quote, no need.*:Done
 * Image:Stpeterchnav.jpg you say you have written permission to use this. Does Wikipedia also have that written permission? *:Done Reply I have written permission for all the photos used. I'm happy to pass that on to Wikipedia, but not sure how to do that.--Seahamlass (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * RAF wasn't formed until 1 April 1918, so the fledgling RAF didn't exist in 1917...*:Done Changed to the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service.
 * Argh, "WW1"? Generally British English would refer to this as the "First World War".*:Done!
 * "8 for World War Two" - "eight for the Second World War"*:Done
 * Ensure that image captions which are fragments don't have full stops and image captions that are grammatically complete sentences do have a full stop.*:Done
 * Does Wikipedia have permission to use Image:Navenbywitch.jpg?*:Done Reply Yes, I have an email from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, granting me permission to use it on Wikipedia.
 * Governance paragraph has several short paragraphs, could do with merging them to make the prose flow better.
 * Not sure of the style of these articles but in the topography section, I'm really not keen on the in-line link to geographical co-ordinates. Reply: I don't like it either much, but I have noticed in other peer reviews that editors have been told to put it in, so I think I had better keep it.
 * No spaces between citations please, so [36] [37] needs adjustment.*:Done
 * Not sure I understand your source for climate statistics, "Source: MSN Years on Record: 11"? Can you clarify?*:Done Changed and simplified.
 * "next 5 years " five years.*:Done
 * Can you link to something relevant for "Grade II listed" and be consistent with II-listed and II listed.*:Done
 * "It is allegedly ..." something like "It is claimed to be..." with appropriate citations would be more encyclopaedic.*:Done
 * Numerical ranges should be separated with an en-dash, not a hyphen, so "aged 5-15" should be "aged 5–15".*:Done
 * "rate was 3" - 3 isn't a rate, it needs a "per..."*:Done
 * "20.18 km" - use the convert template for the imperial-ists amongst us.*:Done
 * "now 47.9% do" - now? needs context, like, As of March 2008, ...*:Done
 * 1859/60 - 1859–60.  There are others...*:Done - Several anyway!
 * "1832.[63]x " - what's the x?*:Done Random character removed!
 * Avoid bullet point lists in potential FA's when prose would be better.Fixed them.*:Done
 * Culture and community section could use some work on prose, merging paragraphs, reducing the over illustration.*:Done Took out a couple of pictures, merged paragraphs, removed bullet points etc.
 * Shouldn't Under 11 be Under-11? Not sure myself...*:Done Looks better like this anyway!
 * "Tracey Duxbury " - again, why italics? *:Done Correcte - italics removed.
 * Trim the external links to those directly relevant.*:Done

Comments from
In addition to the comments by The Rambling Man, I have a few comments. First of all, a very impressive article and also clearly the subject of a lot of hard work by Seahamlass (over 1000 edits!). So, a few comments:

By the way, this coordinates issue affects the whole of Infobox UK place (that is, about 5000 articles). It can and should be much better dealt with by discussing it at the template talk page, since the template currently only permits decimal coordinates. Indeed, this may well affect other place infoboxes.
 * The lead section should introduce the rest of the article. Currently, there are facts like the mention of the Viking Way and the suffix "-by" which do not recur in the main part of the article. WP:LEAD has some pointers to this end.
 * Perhaps partly as a result of this the lead has too many inline references. If the source of a statement is cited in the main body, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead as well (per WP:LEAD) since this is just a summary of what the main article says.
 * Several photos in the articles have black borders, which are generally not preferred; I've gone and tagged them with RemoveBorder though, so you may find these are subsequently fixed quite quickly. They are all under derivative-allowable licenses, so removing the borders is implied to be fine by the authors.
 * The section on food is rather WP:PEAcocky. The article needs to focus on what the significant role of Navenby is in the food being commented on, as opposed to Lincolnshire food in general, and this done in a neutral way.
 * Some parts, in particular the one on sport, need to establish the notability of the things they comment on. Some things might not be sufficiently notable for encyclopedic inclusion, while others just need to be treated in less of a tour-guide-like manner.

Anyway, good luck with the ongoing evolution of this article! BigBlueFish (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)