Wikipedia:Peer review/Portsmouth/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portsmouth[edit]

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

I'm considering nominating this at FAC, so beforehand I opened this peer review in order to make the transaction as smooth as possible. I own two books (which I got from a grant) and think that I should make the most of them. I just need a general idea on what direction I need to take this article in before I nominate. Thanks! JAGUAR  12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw This article is already looking good, but following the request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Wikipedia:Peer review/Portsmouth/archive1 I thought I'd take a look and see if I could do some "nit picking" which might be encountered at FAC:

  • Lead
  • The lead appears to be a comprehensive summary and suitable introduction to the article, however claims such as "it is the United Kingdom's only island city" and "Portsmouth is one of the world's best known ports" need to be cited in the article.
  • Added citations. JAGUAR  13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you have added citations in the lead but in my experience FA reviewers would rather have the same claim somewhere else in the article & the citation added there.— Rod talk 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah sorry I misunderstood that one as I thought you were still referring to the lead. I've moved the "island city" citation to the geography section, although I must point out that the "one of the best known ports" sentence is meant to act as a summary in the lead. I think the idea that the city was one of the most important ports is mentioned in broad strokes throughout the history section. I can remove it or rephrase if you like? JAGUAR  22:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with that now.— Rod talk 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Port" could be wikilinked to Port.
  • Personally I would include "Palmerston Fort" where "fortifications" is wikilinked.
  • Agreed, altered. JAGUAR  13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Portsmouth was the most heavily fortified city in the world" but in the text we have "one of the most heavily fortified towns in Europe" & "the most fortified port in the world". Consistency in the claims made is important.
  • I've just checked the Pevsner book again and it does say "city", so I changed it to "city" in the body. JAGUAR  13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment should have said that one claim is "in Europe" (in Stuart to Georgian) & the other is "in the world" (in Industrial Revolution to Victorian & Lead). I would suggest going with one or the other throughout.— Rod talk 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand now. I've changed it to "the world" for consistency. JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a grammar expect but I think the sentence "The city has several mainline railway stations that connect to London Waterloo, amongst other lines in South East England, while Portsmouth International Port is a commercial cruise ship and ferry port for international destinations" could be split into two and the railway lines reworded for clarity.
  • Split. I don't know if I can mention the specific railway lines without cluttering the lead but I did reword it to southern England instead of South East England, as the lines connect to cities like Bristol and Salisbury. JAGUAR  13:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
  • My Anglo-Saxon isn't up to much, but does "Her cwom Port on Bretene 7 his .ii. suna Bieda 7 Mægla mid .ii. scipum on þære stowe þe is gecueden Portesmuþa 7 ofslogon anne giongne brettiscmonnan, swiþe æþelne monnan" tell a story? as the next sentence starts "The story is related.." & I don't know what story we are referring to.
  • This was copyedited a few times so it no longer makes sense now. I've changed this to "Winston Churchill in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples relates the story that Portsmouth was founded by Port, the pirate". JAGUAR  13:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pedant (not me) might suggest that an event in 1001 could not be construed as "threatening the English with extinction" as some have suggested that the disparate kingdoms within England were not unified until 1066 (but that is a debate I'm not going to get into).
  • I know what you mean, but that is exactly what is said in the book The History of Portsmouth! It says "In short, by their merciless and successful ravages they seemed to threaten an extinction to the English name and nation; for not only all the southern parts were were overrun by the foreign Danes, but the northern countries were peopled by the same nation". The book was written 1817 and has colourful language (I'm not a linguistics expert but the manner of speaking back then seemed very different). I'm not that knowledgeable on early English history but it sounds like the Danes were wiping out the native English in both the north and south, so the historian attributes it to "extinction". I'm not sure what I could it to... if I nominate this for FA soon then I'll be sure to put this in the disclaimer! JAGUAR  13:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who described the army as "one of the finest armies that had ever been raised in England"?
  • The author himself and his colourful language. Should I rephrase it or cut it? JAGUAR  13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume "the author" relates to Lake Allen? If so I would have something like "The historian Luke Allen described it as "one of the finest armies that had ever been raised in England"" (or similar) so that we have the attribution of the quote.— Rod talk 11:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea, done! JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "scourged" may need some explanation (presumably not Scourge).
  • Another old word. I changed this to "attacked". JAGUAR  21:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "English Channel" could be wikilinked
  • "plague" could be wikilinked
  • Ah, fixed by someone using AWB! JAGUAR  22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "a gibbet in Southsea Common" be "a gibbet on Southsea Common"?
  • Elsewhere I have been challenged to find a source for describing Robert Blake, as "the father of the Royal Navy"
  • I couldn't find this in the book so I removed it. JAGUAR  21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "begun to prosper" be "began to prosper"?
  • I could never find that! JAGUAR  21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "canal that linked" could be "canal to link"

I've got to the end of the section "Stuart to Georgian" but running out of time. I can continue later if these sort of comments are useful?— Rod talk 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: thank you so much for the comments! I would like to submit for FAC soon but I am unsure if this would outright fail for some reason. Your comments were very helpful, if you want to continue I would really appreciate it! JAGUAR  21:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a further look but it will not be until Sunday at the earliest.— Rod talk 21:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Industrial Revolution to Victorian
  • rigging could be wikilinked
  • I'm not sure I understand "military bases from an inland attack" I thought the attacks would be coming from the sea & note the following sentence. Some of the Palmerston Forts did have guns pointing out to sea - why were the Portsmouth ones different?
  • My understanding was that Palmerston Forts always had their guns pointed inland, or at least the books I have assert the ones in Portsmouth were faced inland. Hewitt's A Portsmouth Miscellany states "they seemed, to say many people, to be the wrong way around. They had their armaments pointing inland rather than out to sea". From personal experience I have never seen any of their guns near Portsmouth pointed toward the city, so I think the ones in Portsmouth are different. JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "Portsea Island Company" be worth a redlink?
  • "generating £5000 a year" could be "generating an income of £5000 a year" as my initial thought was that we had moved on to electricity generation.
  • True, added JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "depot ship" could be worth wikilinking to Depot ship as I wasn't really sure what this meant
  • Me too. Added JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How serious was the 1835 earthquake? if it just rustled a few trees was it a significant piece of history?
  • This is a good point. I think it was a minor tremor (as are all in England) and shouldn't be worth mentioning. If it was significant then I would have thought it would have damaged buildings etc and not be mentioned as a one sentence factoid in the books! Removed. JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Stramshaw" worth a redlink. I've never heard of it. Was it a separate village which became a suburb?
  • Me neither, I think it was either a once forgotten hamlet or old surbub. A simple Google search doesn't raise anything. Added a redlink JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding it but if a search finds nothing it might not ever become an article so may not be worth it.— Rod talk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edwardian to Second World War
  • We get the first mention here of "The Mighty Chain of Iron" a tudor innovation which might be worth a mention in the Norman to Tudor section.
  • I'm not sure how I can mention that in the Tudor section if it's part of the city's coat of arms which was designed in the 20th century? JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if based on a defensive boom which was constructed in the tudor period it could be linked into the paragraph "In 1539... Southsea Castle..." as part of "Over the years, Portsmouth's fortifications were rebuilt and improved by successive monarchs." If you can find any more info about it.— Rod talk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just read the online source (the defensive boom isn't mentioned in the books I have) and it gives some good detail on it, so I've moved the sentence to the paragraph you suggested. Thanks, that was a good idea! JAGUAR  22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense but there is some problem with the reference which appears in the text as external links etc.— Rod talk 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first mention of Landport so could be wikilinked here
  • Post-war
  • It could be my reading but "After the war, much of the city's housing stock was damaged..." doesn't quite read right as I assume the damage occurred during the war not after it.
  • Good point. Rephrased JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm never sure about the "s" on "to build new accommodations". Should accommodation be plural?
  • Yes, I think the plural should be used in this case JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - as I said I'm no grammar expert, buut I don't think so (and nor does my wife - who is better at grammar than I am).— Rod talk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't too sure in the first place, so I've removed the plural. It's one of those things that you can think about in a different way and it can change the way you think about a word! JAGUAR  22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand "Shipbuilding jobs fell from 46% of work in 1951 to 14% in 1966" is this 46% of the workforce or 46% of the work carried out?
  • 46% of the workforce. Tweaked. JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were they the UK or worldwide headquarters of IBM (which I thought was American), Zurich Insurance Group (headquarters in Zurich)
  • UK headquarters for certain, rephrased JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says European in economy section see comment below.— Rod talk 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, I accidentally made that change to Zurich instead and got confused. Corrected. JAGUAR  22:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who dubbed the Tricorn Centre "the ugliest building in the UK"?— Rod talk 12:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC officially, and everyone unofficially! Reworded for clarity. JAGUAR  18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography
  • In the infobox we are told "Area. City & unitary authority area 15.54 sq mi (40.25 km2)" this could be repeated in this section.
  • Actually I've just done some checking and can't find seem to find any sources to back this up. Should I remove it from the infobox?. JAGUAR  22:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the infoboxes generate population & area data from other sources & automatically calculate population density etc, but I'm not an expert in the template syntax behind them. I think finding a figure for the area would be useful with the discussion about population density in relation to London & other cities.— Rod talk 07:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right as the data must be collected somehow. I hit in Google "Portsmouth area square miles" and the answer came up straight away. I spent some times looking but can't find a good source anywhere. JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Portsmouth is situated primarily on Portsea Island, although parts of it have expanded onto the mainland in recent years,[4] and Gosport forms a borough in its own right immediately to the west" could be split in two.
  • Is "Kingston Cross" a landmark, crossroads, residential area or what?
  • It's actually a road junction (which is funny because I was just there yesterday!), so I hopefully made this clearer. JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got a bit lost in the names of the lakes - any chance of a map to clarify?
  • I couldn't find a map of the lakes themselves, but the best I could do was to look at them on Google Maps. I wonder if it would be copyright to screenshot/edit it and upload it on Wikipedia? JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the oldest reserves" I presume this relates to a Nature reserve? If this is designates as a national or local this could be mentioned (and cited to the designation document).
  • "dominates the skyline in the northern part..." northern part of what?
  • The northern part of the city, as Portsdown Hill is situated in the very north of the city's boundaries. Rephrased JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Climate data for Solent MRSC" what is MRSC?
  • A weather station, although it doesn't say was MRSC stands for. I've rephrased to make this clearer. JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp has the dab page MRSC, but a bit of googling suggests it is at Lee-on-Solent, coastguard station / hovercraft museum.— Rod talk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the sea temperature recorded?
  • The source doesn't say where the temperature was recorded. Even so, I'm not sure where I would put the prose? JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demography
  • Is the "South Hampshire area" referred to the same as South Hampshire?
  • Yes, reworded JAGUAR  16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I a confused by "Portsmouth's long association with the Royal Navy means that it represents one of the most diverse cities in terms of the peoples of the British Isles". Presumably this relates to " has seen many people from across the British Isles move to Portsmouth to work in the factories and docks" but the two sentences are separated by the explanation of "non-white communities" so I'm not sure.
  • "Diverse in terms of the peoples of the British Isles" means that the city has a diverse populations with people from the British Isles, including Irish, Scottish and Welsh etc. And the next sentence is relating to the city's non-white population who are associated with the Royal Navy, so both sentences are similar as they both relate to the navy I think. JAGUAR  16:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we using "2007 estimates" for ethnic groups when we use the 2011 census for the total population?
  • The 2007 census was carried out by Portsmouth City Council themselves and is the only source where I can access precise ethnicity breakdowns, whereas I can't find such figures in the national 2011 census. JAGUAR  17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be something in this or this you could use.— Rod talk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that the table is from 2009, not 2007, so I corrected the figures. While the fact sheet is from the 2011 census, it doesn't display an accurate breakdown of ethnicity like the 2009 census Portsmouth City Council conducted, and if I get rid of that then I think I would be cutting down on some amount of detail. JAGUAR  21:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I had no idea how to get that information. I kept trying to get something through the official 2011 census but couldn't find anything. Anyway, I've applied that information now. JAGUAR  12:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Government and politics
  • Conservative, UKIP, Lib Dem etc are wikilinked but Labour isn't.
  • Linked (not biased or anything!) JAGUAR  17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted, linked JAGUAR  17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy
  • I don't see evidence for the claim that "tenth of the city's workforce is employed at Portsmouth Naval Dockyard" in Ref 171
  • In the third bullet point on the table it says "A tenth of the city's workforce is employed at the Portsmouth Naval Dockyard, where BAE is based" JAGUAR  17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why IO didn't spot that one.— Rod talk 19:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the specific restaurants listed "of note"? Do they have Michelin stars or some external validation - otherwise it could just be the places I like.
  • Oh my, I didn't add this! I didn't even see this in the article until now. Don't know when that was added. Although I like the addition of new content I've removed it all as I don't think it's notable enough. JAGUAR  17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've got it this time. To clarify, Portsmouth is home to the UK headquarters of Zurich and the European headquarters of IBM. JAGUAR  17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cascades Shopping Centre & Gunwharf Quays shopping centres are in both 1st & 2nd paragraphs mixed with the port etc. I would just have one paragraph relating to "shopping"
  • Done, I think. I've merged it into the second paragraph. JAGUAR  20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incest & necrophilia may be worth a link (and I don't think I have ever written that sentence before)
  • Portsmouth is a lovely place! Linked JAGUAR  20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not supposed to be an advert!— Rod talk 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education
  • When was the University of Portsmouth "ranked as the top modern university in the United Kingdom in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings" & can you give a reference
  • I completely reworked and corrected this to "The university was ranked among the top 100 modern universities in the world in April 2015" (number 85 to be exact), and gave two new references. JAGUAR  20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that's it. Linked JAGUAR  20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked. All these articles I never knew existed! JAGUAR  20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The areas of the cemeteries could be converted to shpw both acres & hectares
  • A reference is needed for the "17-acre Highland, or Eastney, Cemetery" (which also seems to have a stray comma)
  • I had to get rid of this sentence because after archiving the source I discovered that Eastney cemetery wasn't mentioned, although it did confirm that Milton Road Cemetery had 200 burials a year, so I kept that part in. JAGUAR  20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book doesn't mention who it was named after, nor even does its official website give any hint. However, Lord Frederick FitzClarence was once the governor of Portsmouth so I assume it's highly likely the pier was named after him. I've mentioned in the article. JAGUAR  12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Didn't know an article existed! JAGUAR  12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do we define "vast" about Southsea Common (there are much larger grassland areas elsewhere)?
  • I thought that 480 acres was quite "vast" considering there is limited space on Portsea Island, so I think that was partially the reason why I wrote it like that. But I know what you mean, so it's probably best to remove it. JAGUAR  12:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion
  • I see information about a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Raf 152 but not the claim that it is "one of a few British cities with two cathedrals" (I can think of several)
  • I couldn't find anything to back this claim up, so I restructured the opening of the section. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. In the first para the Anglican cathedral developed from a chapel built in 1185 but in the 2nd para it developed from a "12th-century chapel built by Jean de Gisors" are we talking about the same building? - of so can we combine the mentions?
  • It is quite confusing. The first source states it was built in 1185, but the second says "around 1180". Not quite sure what to do here if they give conflicting dates. The first paragraph talks about the original chapel itself, and the second paragraph talks about the cathedral which evolved from the original chapel. 1185 is in the 12 century, is it not? JAGUAR  13:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think they are talking about the same origins and would therefore combine the mentions, possibly into something like:
.... The city's first chapel, dedicated to Thomas Becket, was built by Jean de Gisors in the second half of the 12th century.[1][2] The chapel was rebuilt and developed into the the parish church and then Anglican cathedral.[3][2] It was damaged during the Siege of Portsmouth in 1642, but after the restoration of the monarchy the tower and nave were rebuilt.[4] Significant changes were made when the Diocese of Portsmouth was established in 1927.[5] It became a cathedral in 1932, and was enlarged, although construction was halted during the Second World War. The cathedral was re-consecrated in the presence of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother in 1991.[6]
The Royal Garrison Church was founded in 1212 by Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester. After centuries of decay, it became an ammunition store in 1540. The marriage of Charles II to Catherine of Braganza took place in the church in 1662. After the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig in 1914, large receptions were held inside the church. In 1941, a firebomb fell on the roof, destroying the nave.[7] The church's chancel was saved by servicemen shortly after the raid; however, replacing the roof was determined to be impossible due to the large amounts of salt solution the stonework had absorbed over the years.[8]

  1. ^ "St Thomas's Portsmouth Cathedral | Old Portsmouth". Welcometoportsmouth.co.uk. Retrieved 9 August 2011.
  2. ^ a b "History of Portsmouth Cathedral". Portsmouth Cathedral. Portsmouth City Council. Archived from the original on 20 January 2015. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
  3. ^ "Portsmouth chapel history". History.inportsmouth.co.uk. 10 January 1941. Archived from the original on 11 July 2010. Retrieved 8 March 2011.
  4. ^ Knowles 2006, p. 21.
  5. ^ Hewitt 2013, p. 44.
  6. ^ "Portsmouth Cathedral, History and Visiting". Hampshire Guide. Britain Express. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
  7. ^ "Royal Garrison Church, Portsmouth". English Heritage. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
  8. ^ Hewitt 2013, p. 150.
Thank you so much! Added. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I went back to the Stuart to Georgian section and rephrased the sentence in question to "Parliamentarian troops were sent to raid it by land in the Siege of Portsmouth". JAGUAR  13:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it had been a church for centuries & a cathedral since 1932 it must have been re- consecrated in 1991.
  • Transport and communication
  • Picture caption "Ferries and cargo and military vessels" could be reworded for one less "and"
  • The naming of the ferry company could be more consistent. We have "Acciona Trasmediterranea" which redirects to Trasmediterránea, "Acciona" which is not wikilinked to Acciona & then "AT". I presume these all relate to the same company but it is not clear
  • It's all the same company, so I've used "Trasmediterránea" throughout for consistency. JAGUAR  13:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastleigh is wikilinked on the 2nd usage not the first
  • "Portsmouth News" could be wikilinked to The News (Portsmouth) (I see this is done in the next section Media, which is probably most appropriate)
  • Done here too. JAGUAR  13:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a mention. JAGUAR  13:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ocean Sound was linked but it redirected to Heart Hampshire. I've linked Heart Hampshire instead. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Future developments
  • I'm not sure about "future" sections in these articles as they can quickly become out of date as plans change (and some of it already seems historical - 2008, 2009 etc). Much of the material could be in "economy" or similar sections
  • I agree. The future developments section was originally triple the length but I was forced to move some content to the economy section and delete a couple of paragraphs altogether. @Rodw: before I continue with this point, do you think I should move the entire first paragraph to the economy section (as I'm sure the new aircraft carriers are vital to the city's shipbuilding/naval industry) and delete the second paragraph? I think the second paragraph is outdated as the building plans in question are over seven years old... JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree. Move the aircraft stuff into economy & move any bits about Gunwharf Quays & Admiralty Quarter Tower which aren't already covered elesewhere into shopping or residential paragraphs & then delete the rest.— Rod talk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved both paragraphs into the economy section. The first paragraph about the aircraft carriers belonged in the economy section and the second paragraph about planned buildings is now merged in the middle of the section. I hope this looks OK. JAGUAR  13:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Babcock Babcock" is that really the name of the company ( or just a typo)? Possibly Babcock International?
  • That was an embarrassing typo. Fixed and linked. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable residents
  • "..of noted authors. Most notably.."I would try to reword so that noted & notable are not quite so close together
  • Changed the first "noted" to "famed". Thankfully there weren't that many uses of the "notable" in the section. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictures
  • I am not a picture expert however:
  • File:George VI inspecting the crew of HNoMS Draug.jpg says it is public domain under Norwegian copyright law, however as it was take in Portsmouth this may not apply (NB I'm not a copyright expert but have been challenged on this sort of thing at FAC)
  • I don't know much about copyright either, but I think if the picture in question is over 70 years (in the UK at least) then it should be in public domain. I've changed the licence to match those of others taken in Britain during the war. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is 70 years from the death of the artist/photographer or date of 1st publication, but the tag on it now seems OK if tha is what other government photos from the same period use. If you go to FAC it will include a review of the images copyright status.— Rod talk
  • Yeah, I wasn't too sure about this. I've always set images to "250px" across all of the articles I've written as it's usually the best size for me, no matter what screen I use. I've gotten rid of all of the "250px" sizes in the images, although the "thumb" parameter is still there. I hope this looks OK. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I hope this looks OK. They look very small for me, but that could be my widescreen monitor. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aerial photo in geography is still set to 300px & may be chalenged but I suspect you can argue that for the level of detail to be seen this is needed.— Rod talk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is considered good practice (although not a requirment) to have "ALT" descriptions of images for blind and partially sighted users who use text to speech translators (see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images)
  • I forgot about this. I've just added alt descriptions throughout. JAGUAR  18:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
  • What makes CastleUK.net (Ref 6) a reliable source?
  • Removed. The sentence is still safely backed up by another source. JAGUAR  18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 " "The liberty of Portsmouth and Portsea Island: Introduction" could include the editors name & publisher
  • Added both. JAGUAR  18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42 "Southsea Castle History" should have an accessdate
  • Ref 47 "Old Portsmouth—Duke of Buckingham" is 404
  • Ref 62 "Pompey, Chats and Guz: the Origins of Naval Town nicknames". gives 404
  • Ref 73 "John Pounds Memorial Church" gives an unobtainable link to me
  • Archived and fixed the website and publisher too. JAGUAR  19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 84 "Portsmouth's Coat of Arms" gives a broken link response (info may be covered by Ref 83). There also seems to be extra quote marks around the title in this ref
  • Just realised these are duplicate refs! I've removed one. JAGUAR  19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 88 "Portsmouth Guildhall bombed during WWII" (Portsmouthnowandthen) gives an unobtainable page
  • I've archived ref 88 (I've linked it as the numbering will have moved around by the time I post this), and moved it to a more appropriate sentence as my book covered the sentence this was originally sourced to, so this was possibly a mistake on my part. JAGUAR  19:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 93 "Southwick House" gives unobtainable
  • I checked to see if this was reliable before I archived it, but discovered that its author was a once prestigious journalist so it should be OK to keep. Archived. JAGUAR  19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 126 "Solent Geology" the authors name is normally presented first
  • Ref 140 "Concentrated Population Information, Portsmouth News". lacks a publisher
  • Filled out everything. JAGUAR  19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 143 uses "ONS" where 147 & 154 use "Office of National Statistics" - be consistent. Ref 141 may also need ONS as publisher
  • I've used "Office of National Statistics" throughout JAGUAR  19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 149 "Portsmouth Census and Ethnicity Information" lacks a publisher
  • Ref 170 "Portsmouth Guildhall History" lacks a publisher
  • Added both website and publisher. JAGUAR  19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 186 "Victorian Festival of Christmas 2016" is broken
  • Ref 225 "Kipps by HG Wells – review" could include the author (Anthony Cummins)
  • Added, thanks. JAGUAR  19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 240 "Portsmouth secondary schools redevelopment" gives 404
  • I removed this along with its entire sentence as the source didn't back most of what was said about the schools' redevelopment. JAGUAR  19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 248 "The Top 100 Prep Schools by Key Stage 2 Tests" is broken
  • Archived and added publisher. JAGUAR  19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 320 "Portsmouth clinch promotion and championship" is broken
  • Archived, but I had to remove most of the sentence because it didn't back most of it up (always for the best). JAGUAR  19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 337 "Wightlink Ferries" seems to redirect & may not support the info about the car ferry
  • I've archived it and it seems to be OK, to my surprise. All I want it to mention is that it offers car ferries to the Isle of Wight, as the sentence it's meant to be backing up is short. I hope this is OK, if not I'll be happy to remove it. JAGUAR  19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 340 "Continental Ferryport" is broken
  • Archived and added publisher. JAGUAR  19:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 369 "End of the line for monorail plan" is broken
  • I couldn't find an archived version of this anywhere so I was forced to cut this. Speaking of which, I'm open to deleting the monorail paragraph as a whole as it seems outdated. JAGUAR  19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the particular services but if these sorts of major infrastructure developments are serious then they may be worth keeping in.— Rod talk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 385 "New carriers being built at Portsmouth base" is broken
  • Created a new archived link. JAGUAR  19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 391 "Admiralty Quarter, Portsmouth" is broken
  • Ref 394 "Number One Portsmouth Planning Information" is broken
  • Ref 412 "James Callaghan" is broken
  • Strange that Number 10's official website went down. Archived. JAGUAR  19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 417 "Geeta Basra – Biography" is broken
  • Ref 418 "Bollywood actress in Portsmouth" is broken
  • Ref 426 "Katy Sexton Bests Sarah Price as Both Women Break 100m Backstroke Commonwealth Record at British Trials" is brpoken
  • This one couldn't be archived so I removed it. JAGUAR  19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bibliography "Mitchell, Garry (1988). Hilsea Lines and Portsbridge." might need a publisher
  • Just discovered that it was self published. I don't know how to add a publisher for that? Unless I just add his name again in the publisher field? JAGUAR  19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep I would put the authors name as the publisher as well. Self published works can meet RS - particularly if the author is a noted expert in the field.— Rod talk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added him as the publisher. I never knew you could do that... JAGUAR  14:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • General
  • You might want to use User:Ucucha/duplinks on the article it shows quite a few wikilinks which are linked multiple times & check webchecklinks for broken external links
  • Generally I think it is an impressive piece of work. Most of the issues I've highlighted above can be fixed reasonably easily, but the sheer number of them may put off some FAC reviewers (although I'm sure they will find other things to comment on). Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 17:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much, Rod! I owe you a big one. I have addressed all of your points so far however there are still a couple of issues outstanding which I will try to clarify tomorrow, including the ones about the map of the lakes and Portsmouth's area in square miles. All that archiving tired me out so I'll take another look at this tomorrow morning if that's OK. JAGUAR  19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have done lots of good work on it. I've added a comment about the "future developments" section. There are also quite a few duplicate links showing with User:Ucucha/duplinks, but I can't think of much else to suggest for improvements at the moment. It would probably be worth asking someone with good copyediting skills to take a look as grammar is definitely not my thing.— Rod talk 21:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, and sorry for the late reply as I've been a bit busy lately. I've been asked on the status of the Portsmouth grant and I said I would send the books back, even though this was before you started reviewing it! I reckon I could get away with sending it to FAC without the books, as from here on out any remaining future issues would only be on the prose and existing sources, so I wouldn't need to add more content. Thank you once again for the excellent review! I'll have to return the favour if you need an article reviewing at FAC etc. I think the two outstanding issues here is the lack of map of the city's lakes and the city's area data? JAGUAR  20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. I hope the review has been useful and picked up some issues before FAC (although I'm sure the reviewers there will find more). I didn't know anything for a grant for books but I'm sure many of them would be available from local libraries etc. Good luck.— Rod talk 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Portsmouth/archive1&oldid=1142589783"