Wikipedia:Peer review/Bristol/archive3

Bristol[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has remained fairly stable since achieving GA status in March 2009 and I would like to see what needs doing before taking it to WP:FAC

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think the article is too far from FAC nomination standard (but I'm biased as I have edited in the past), but I spotted a few areas for work:

~~All images need WP:ALT descriptions added.~~

Alt text added. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The table in the Demographics section creates lots of white space - I think this could be presented horizontally rather than vertically.~~

Table is now horizontal. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article could do with a copyedit - specifically for things such as "indie band" (in arts section) which should be either explained or wikilinked

I'll get to this when some of the other issues have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are lots of citations there are some bits which are unreferenced eg 2nd sentence of Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery & Royal West of England Academy.
Use the tools (top right of this page) which show several broken external links in references.

I'll try to take a closer look later.— Rod ^talk 09:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts:

~~In the lead what does "it ranked amongst the top three English cities" mean? Is this population, economic or industrial output or the more nebulas "importance"?~~

Fixed and re-cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest doing strikethrough yourself once issues have been addressed.— Rod ^talk 19:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been discussed in the past but we have population figures in the infobox of 421,300, 551,066 & 1,006,60. In the lead we have 416,400 & 561,500. In demographics 416,900, 441,556 & 551,066. I know it is difficult to get agreement on definitions etc, but if this goes to FAC it will be picked up.
The lead has the unreferenced claim "Royal Charter in 1155" which should be in history or governance & referenced. In history we have "Traditionally this is equivalent to the town being granted city status." which is ? Dated 1140 & unreferenced.
In history we have "perhaps 15,000–20,000" - I'm not sure perhaps is the best word?
Is a reference needed for "17th century establishing colonies at Bristol's Hope and Cuper's Cove."
I had to read the sentence "Competition from Liverpool from c. 1760, the disruption of maritime commerce caused by wars with France (1793) and the abolition of the slave trade (1807) contributed to the city's failure to keep pace with the newer manufacturing centres of the North of England and the West Midlands." 3 times to make sense, which is never a good sign, but I'm no copyeditor!
Does ref 34 cover the claim "The rebuilding of Bristol city centre was characterised by large, cheap 1960s tower blocks, brutalist architecture and expansion of roads."?
In governance we have Liberal Democrat wikilinked twice & the second time called "Lib Dem" which might be considered unencyclopedic language
"next General Election" could be dated & linked to United Kingdom general election, 2010.
South Gloucestershire is wikilinked in boundaries but not in governance which comes first.
Does new Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency will include the suburbs in South Gloucestershire. need a ref?
Burke "famously insisted" without a ref
Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence & Tony Benn also need refs
Should African-Caribbean be wikilinked?

Hope these comments are useful? I can look at the rest of the article if you want if it is too much just tell me to stop.— Rod ^talk 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are really useful, all good points. I know it will take some time to get this into shape, but i shall plod on with it. Thanks for your time. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK some more comments:

In Boundaries should ref 49 be at the end of the sentence about Greater Bristol? Is CUBA worth a mention?
In climate is a specific ref needed for the rainfall figures?
The infobox has imperial measurements then (metric) & the climate table has metric (imperial) - I know at least one FA reviewer who will pic this up & debate the need for consistency as set out in WP:MOSNUM
The note about the historical popn data should probably be a proper "Note" & appear in a notes list at the end.
In Economy & Industry - Is Bristol time worth a mention?
The GDP per head figure needs a ref
Is Bloodhound SSC worth a mention?
The first part of the para on Concorde might need a ref
In sustainability why are Cyclebag & Resourcesaver in bold?
In Arts - the number of seats in each theatre might need a ref
Thomas Lawrence & Francis Greenway might need refs
The 2nd & 3rd paras of Sport & Leisure are almost unreferenced
In education... Cecil Frank Powell needs a ref
I think there may be too many pics, but the layout on my screen is affected by the ALT TEXT reader I have installed.

I will try to help to resolve some of these issues & if you need further explanation of any of my comments please let me know.— Rod ^talk 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References - I think there may be some queries at FAC over some of the references (current ref numbers in brackets):

What makes Geody (6) reliable?
What makes roman-britain.org (10) reliable?
Bryan Little - page number needed
Rayfield (16) page nos needed
What makes Love my Town (18) reliable?
Black Lives in Britain (23) needs English Heritage as publisher
John Penny Luftwaffe..(32) needs author & publisher sorting
McNeill (35) needs page nos
Chris David (40) needs date accessed
Atkins (49) needs page no
Stats Office (56) is borked somehow
Lattimer (65) needs page nos
Knowles (69) needs page nos
Gross value added needs publisher etc
Sustrans (93) not sure if "relevant section produced here" will do?
What makes Residence.org (101) reliable
Coleridge, Wordsworth... (120) needs page nos
Burrough (139) needs page nos
Church of St James (140) & all IoE (141-143) needs EH as publisher
Foyle (144) needs page no
Bamford (150) needs page nos
Stoke (158) needs page nos
Elmes (160) needs publisher etc
al-baseera (163) needs more info

I'm going to stop now as I don't want to be too depressing but can find other issues if needed!— Rod ^talk 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness - having taken another look at WP:UKCITIES there doesn't seem to be a section in this article on public services. This might include: Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Avon Fire & Rescue Service, Wessex Water, Great Western Ambulance Service, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Southmead Hospital, Frenchay Hospital etc.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of this Rod, I shall plod on with this. I expect it will take a few weeks, but i really am grateful for these pointers. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to close this peer review now as I have plenty of issues to address. I will look at all of these and then bring it back later. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]