Talk:Weston-super-Mare/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments: Seems reasonable - I'll do a proper review when I have more time later

A few places without citations

I'll look for these

Ref 26 needs proper formatting

Done

I'd rather you didn't use IMDb as a source (ref 70)

Changed— Rod ^talk 13:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I haven't spotted any real problems here. There are a couple of short paragraphs that should be combined with others.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Generally good, but I'm not sure about a couple of refs (7 seems to be some sort of wiki/amateur site; couple more IMDbs left as well). Can I also ask why some refs have italics in and others do not for the same things (reg:efs 25,26). Ref 68 needs presenting properly.

The italics seen to be generated by "cite web" when the work parameter is used.— Rod ^talk 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So some use cite web and others don't? I just don't understand why, for example, BBC is in italics in ref 85, and not in 99 or 30. Jhbuk (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where BBC News was include as work=BBC News it was italicised, where it is publisher=BBC News it isn't - hopefully fixed now.— Rod ^talk 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find different references for IMDb (110,111)? What do you think about ref 7? Jhbuk (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done for Con O'Neill, but I can't find an alternative for Sean Martin. Ref 7 - Magalithic portal is used on lots of other wp pages, but I see what you mean as anyone can add data. I've backed it up with a second ref from the local residents association.— Rod ^talk 17:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good; IMDb isn't completely unsuitable, but I just prefer to avoid it wherever I can. I think the only thing now are the religious demographics that seem to be lacking. Jhbuk (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
One more thing: I can't see anything about religious groups under demographics, and the buildings section doesn't discuss it either. Jhbuk (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Many articles like this have some bias in their "culture" sections, but this article seems good. My one slight criticism is that the article mentions all of these new tourist attractions, but doesn't really say whether that have worked: could we possibly have some actual visitor figures comparing before and after?

I've added a section in tourism on visitor numbers, but specifics on particular attractions do not appear to be available.— Rod ^talk 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
No caption for one in "21st century". Otherwise good

|:*I've struggled with this. Because the size is defined in pixels it doesn't show up. If you leave it as thumb it is half the size of the page - help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 15:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it. Jhbuk (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll have to check the code in case I have anopther really long thin pic to do.— Rod ^talk 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Very well done. A lot of effort has clearly gone into this
Pass: