Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Westgate-on-Sea

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

Westgate-on-Sea

[edit]

I think this fulfils the FA criteria. Epbr123 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per instructions at WP:PR, article should not be listed at both WP:PR and WP:FAC. Please follow the instructions to archive the old peer review and remove it from WP:PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAC instructions: Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each. Epbr123, you currently have at least four nominations running at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Even though you may have time, it is not recommended to go against policy, and it may reflect badly on an article if another one you nominated is not up to standard. Matt - TheFearow 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that advice. Epbr123 21:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not policy though. One could interpret the above as not posting "back to back" nominations. It would only reflect badly on the article if the reviewers dismiss it due to "policy violations". - hahnchen 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator is really prepared to act on comments in each nomination, I don't see why they cannot have multiple simultaneous nominations. That said it is more difficult to manage multiple noms and the advice at the top of WP:FAC shouldn't be dismissed lightly. Resurgent insurgent 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the similarity of content I can see how this and the Birchington article were developed at the same time and its fine by me. I haven't seen the other three tohugh.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs
  • "Notable residents" is a mere two sentence paragraph, and doesn't even have an introduction which introduces the section.
  • "Politics" section has two stubby sentences.
  • "Demographics" section is listy.
  • "A free skatepark was recently added to the town for both skateboarders and in line skaters.[36]" The word "recently" is a redundant phrase.

These are just examples of what needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vendetta. I'm just wishing to illustrate why I feel the article needs work per my comments, and I feel my criteria concerns are actionable. If they aren't, the user can feel free not to address them. LuciferMorgan 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't act upon actionable concerns, then the article won't pass, regardless of how you feel about the person bringing them. Trebor 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point 1: Since when have sections required introductions, especially three line ones?
  • Point 2: OK, I'll join the sentences together.
  • Point 3: The lists are unavoidable without reducing the quality of the article.
  • Point 4: I disagree but I'll remove the word anyway.
  • Next?

As concerns point 1, even a single sentence can act as an introduction. A single sentence is needed there to introduce it, something like "Several notable residents have lived in the town" or whatever.

As concerns point 4, it isn't one to disagree with - that's a fact which one cannot debate. In a year or two years time, that word will be redundant. Instead of the word "recently" all one has to do is change it to when it was added. Strike out the points I've made which you've addressed. Another concern;

  • "While staying at nearby Birchington in the 1930s, the poet Sir John Betjeman wrote his poem Westgate-on-Sea, which well evokes the orderly, genteel holiday resort of the day."

According to whom does this poem evoke "the orderly, genteel holiday resort of the day"? Which person or organisation of note has claimed this poem evokes just this? This is a critical opinion so needs attribution, or otherwise can be deemed original research. LuciferMorgan 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion. I've struck out others criteria concerns in 2 successful FACs and nobody has complained. It helps me know which comments I've yet to address, and I see no problem in it. I have every intention of striking out addressed concerns in future FACs - the only thing I wouldn't strike out is someone's actual vote, even if I had addressed their stated concerns. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect the Notable people section can go into the lead, and the politics section can be easily increased by adding another decade or two to show more longitudinally how folks voted. Could also expand a bit on the newspapers are they free/left-leaning/right-leaning...any more to add on the pavilion? I feel the article satisfies cirteria on prose (the trickiest bit), I'd be happier with a teeny bit more fleshing out. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • cool. Support then. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the town's drinking water come from? --maclean 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Southern Water Services Ltd's underground sources in the chalk at Lord of the Manor, Sparrow Castle, Minster B, Flemings, Woodnesborough, Wingham, Deal, Martin Gorse, Sutton, Ringwould, and from the River Stour. Epbr123 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does their sewage go? --maclean 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose It is lacking in lots of areas:
    • It needs a copy-edit. It has typos and punctuation errors that should be picked up by any spelling checker, and would benefit from some rephrasing. Some examples: There are unnecessary "the town" and "the town's" (unless there is some reason for confusion, you can assume we know that you are referring to Westgate-on-Sea). The photo captions also suffer from having "Westgate-on-Sea's" in front of everything. "Of those households, 38.0% were married couples living together" - "living together" not required. "The A28 road, runs between Hastings and Margate via Ashford, Canterbury, Birchington and Westgate-on-Sea." - what's the first comma for?
    • History section starts well but tells us very little about the development of the town after 1871. There is more on the history of the Bandstand than the town.
    • "During World War I, a Royal Naval Seaplane base was situated on the town's coast to defend the Thames Estuary naval towns from attack. After the war, it was moved 3 miles (5 km) south to Manston, where it has now become Kent International Airport." -the plane has become Kent International Airport?
    • "The geology of the Thanet consists of chalk, deposited when the area was below the sea before the English Channel broke though between Kent and France." - three problems: 1) the Thanet? 2)the geology consists only of chalk? 3)The English Channel broke through the sea?
    • The figures in the table do not correspond to the figures in the text in the Demographics section.
    • The lead does not summarise the article. The last paragraph on culture contains information not mentioned in the body.
    • In the Transport section, you use "during day time": if we are going to have the frequencies of services perhaps we should also be told when day time is.
    • Is a supermarket really worth mentioning in culture? It might just merit a word in history if the supermarket opening was a milestone in the development of the town, but I would have thought Betjeman's poem would rate higher than Somerfield Yomanganitalk 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think they have all been now fixed. Epbr123 10:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've covered some of them but it could still do with a copy-edit and I don't see that the history section has improved much. Apart from the addition of the bells (why were they moved by the way?), the establishment of a couple of schools (why did one move to Somerset?), the base and the bandstand, from this I'd expect the town to be pretty much identical to what it was in 1871. Has the town grown? How did it provide employment in the past? How has it fared as a tourist resort over years? When did the pensioners move in? Is the bandstand the only building of interest in the town? I see Betjeman refers to the "Happy bells of eighteen-ninety" in his poem (which would perhaps benefit from a line or two of comment as well), what are they? When was the Parade built? Is there a new Town Hall to replace the one which is now a cinema? (And now you've mentioned the Carlton in the History section the reintroduction in the Culture section is awkward). Anything happen during World War II? Yomanganitalk 23:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Work done so far: the reasons why the bells and school moved, and the population growth have been added. The culture section has been reworded. But the building of the parade has already been mentioned, the Town Hall hasn't been replaced, and the only interesting buildings are the pavilion, schools, cinema and churches. Epbr123 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apologies for not getting back to this earlier. The "History" section has improved, but the "Culture" section could still do with a copy-edit and some fleshing-out. It is bitty and certain sections look like they've been lifted wholesale from tourist brochures: For children, there is a sea paddling pool and rock pools to explore, An addition to the theatre, the Westgate Pavilion also holds events such as The Jazz Club, yoga, tap dancing, indoor bowls, discos, dances and goth nights (aside from the advertising feel to that, should the beginning of that sentence be "In addition"? If so, also is redundant). It's probably hard to find much info on culture, but a little expansion of some of the items would go a long way improving the flow. Yomanganitalk 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice I'd voted twice, so my apologies. I've struck out my first oppose, though my comments at my first oppose still need addressing also. LuciferMorgan 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones?? Epbr123 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 in my original oppose. LuciferMorgan 08:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unactionable as per all other city FAs. Epbr123 09:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. There's way too many two sentence or three sentence paragraphs throughout the whole article. LuciferMorgan 13:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Not quite what your point 3 said. So what's wrong with three sentence paragraphs then? Sigh. Epbr123 14:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could be merged that's all. It isn't anything that's real difficult. LuciferMorgan 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged some paragraphs, but only where it is appropriate. Epbr123 14:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Westgate-on-Sea&oldid=1138475440"