Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saltwell Park/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 Ian Rose 10:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Saltwell Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A first visit to FAC for an article on a beautiful Victorian urban park in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, England. This article started as a stub before it passed a GAN undertaken by Eric Enfermero at the back end of last year. It was subsequently peer reviewed by Bald Zebra who kindly made some recommendations which have now been incorporated. Any questions/comments welcome...Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (Geograph project, own work). Sources and authors provided.

File:Saltwell_Park_Overview.jpg - ~~could you add a brief description (what exactly is depicted? in what direction? ...) to the image summary? Completely optional, but would be helpful for other users.~~ GermanJoe (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: done! Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Multiple pages should use "pp.", "p." for single
Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
FN49: publisher?
BBC should not be italicized, The Journal should. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I think these have been addressed. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article is well-developed and an interesting, informative read. Some minor parts contain unencyclopedic details (see points 7,9,10), but overall the tone is factual and descriptive.

lead "Upon opening, it became known as "The People's Park". => not critical info, but who coined that term? (same for section "Park use" later)
"...and is now considered "one of Britain's finest examples of a Victorian park". => HLF as a co-funder of the restoration can't be used as a neutral source here. I don't doubt it, but this subjective statement needs an uninvolved source.
Conception "...the Teams, Bensham and Low Fell" => some descriptors would help here, Is "Teams" a river or the valley? Bensham and Low Fells are suburbs?
"... and whose work can still be seen today in cathedrals at Chichester and Newcastle upon Tyne." => out of scope, remove (the focus is on the Park, not William Wailes).
"Redheugh" => red-link like Shipcote?
"Kemp's plans were implemented over a period of years by borough surveyor James Bowyer at a cost of around £11,000." => how many years? Approximately would be enough, if no exact value is available.
Design "It takes around one hour to walk around the park" => touristguide info, remove
"..."important feature in the history and development of the park"" => quotes like this need a direct in-text attribution, who said this?
"From the southern section, Saltwell Towers is hidden by the stone wall but once viewed it "dominates the park"" => unencyclopedic details, remove
"[Generations of visitors have stood at the side of the lake to "feed the ducks", but this is something of a misnomer – whilst] the lake has long been inhabited => remove the first part.
"Park use" - i'll have to trust your judgement here - are all those activities really notable beyond a local audience? Please double-check, only events of major interest should be listed.
map => Completely optional, but any chance for a park map? It would be a great help to visualize the park's layout. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses
1. I don't know, sadly, and despite looking extensively in the past I can't find out I'm afraid.
2. I've found a couple of other sources but this one is essentially the tourist board so is no more uninvolved than the HLF and this one frankly looks like it is simply plagiarising the wiki article. The best I could find is this book which states that Saltwell park is "the nicest of all" parks in Tyneside but I can't think that is much use to an encyclopedia article, so I've simply taken the quote out.
3. No problem; done.
4. Okay, removed.
5. Done.
6. Again, I don't have that info I'm afraid: the exact words of the source are "Hancock declined and Kemp drew up a design which was submitted to the Council in 1876. This was implemented over the years which followed by the Borough Surveyor James Bowyer, who designed many of the park buildings." hence my own rather wishy-washy statement in the article. I'm not sure an exact figure could be given; the park was opened in 1876 but was routinely added to over the next thirty or so years and I'm not entirley sure it was ever 'finished' (if that makes sense).
7. Gone.
8. Added
9. Not entirely sure I agree with this one but I've removed nonetheless.
10. Done
11. All of the events listed received local media coverage and almost all received national media coverage so I think they can all stay.
12. I'd love to add one but there isn't a free map available so far as I can tell. There is this map but I'm sure it isn't usable. Any suggestions?

Thanks for taking the time to comment Joe. I've responded to your suggestions above. Meetthefeebles (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. and 6. No worries, when the sources are vague, the article has to reflect this.
12. It would probably be OK to make a simple re-drawing based on that map with less details and other graphical elements, but it would be a lot of work. For now i suggest to add the link as "External links" (it has a bit of advertisement, but also lots of useful information).

Done Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13. (new) Not sure where exactly, but the awards should be mentioned in the main article body (per WP:LEAD). Conversely you'll have to summarize the section "Park use" in the lead aswell, maybe add 2-3 of the most notable events or add a general summary statement to the third lead paragraph. Make sure all non-trivial info from the lead is in the main article body and vice-versa all article sections are summarized in the lead. GermanJoe (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for these Joe, and apologies for the delay in responding (work came along and swamped me unexpectedly). I've made some changes and additions per your suggestions. Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~No need for two Tyne and Wear links in the lead.~~

Removed Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to say that the first word of "Race for life" should be decapitalized, but upon seeing the article on the subject I now think that the last word should be capitalized instead. Same goes for the body, in the awards section.

Agreed and done Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conception and opening: "Whilst" → "While"?

Changed as suggested Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principal attractions: Is "towers" supposed to be capitalized in the photo caption here?

It is capitalised in all of the sources, so I think yes. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Period needed after "raccoon" after a usage of ref 8.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting bud. I've made some changes as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- as this nom has been open for about six weeks with no consensus to promote and no comments for almost two weeks, I'll be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.