Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/East End of London

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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

East End of London[edit]

(Self nomination, with other collaborators) I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. The article has been through two GA's and a peer review. Issues that were raised have been addressed. I would also welcome further input on the development of the article. Kbthompson 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Nearly there~~ ~~Oppose for now~~ - looks very good and prose, layout and comrehensiveness all look good. A little comma-happy in the prose in places. I'll try and catch a few but it'll be a fall over the line soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(can't find the damn commas now...but anyway..) OK, Community tensions have often been raised by racist events. - eww. People are racist, not events. Would look better if it were described as race-driven event (?) or if you can think of some other adjective highlighting it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~90&~~ 95% of it looks great, but two sections (and lack of a third) let it down. ~~The disasters section should be turned into prose and paragraphs - I'd have two, a pre-war summary of bits and pieces and one on the blitz, which is a pretty iconic event.~~

The last bit really needs some work - the literature subsection needs some refs and could do with a little embellishment, the TV and really obvious TV show needs a few lines on its importance in UK television - only one of the biggest soaps over the past 20 years and is named for the place and tries to be as 'east-endy' as possible (doesn't have to be too long, a note about Walford and real analogue would help too (though not a deal-breaker))

::There is nothing on cockney apart from a seealso (?!) - this really needs a paragraph pr two under east end culture or somesuch. In the seealso section Jack London and Orwell need to be incorporated into literature.

Overall, though it is a terrific read and you should get over the line this go round, ~~but just need to plug a bit~~

Comment Thanks for that. Very helpful.

- I rephrased and re-ordered the population section to get around the awkward expression.
- I'll fix the disasters section today. I think by four paragraphs, general, first war and second, post-war. I want to try avoid to further sub-headings.
- Not concentrating on Cockney was really something that arose from the discussions when we started expanding this article, about a year ago (my god). The definition we agreed was geographic, rather than linguistic. Cockney being something that started in the City and concentrated in the East End as a linguistic remnant. I realise that you're right and it is a related, if not conterminous term.
- East Enders - anyone watch it? I'll do what I can.

No, again, thank you very constructive. Kbthompson 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moving right along, and not indenting:

There is now an extensive section on the second world war, with emphasis on the blitz. Some detail was previously buried in ... built environment and ... disasters, they've now been incorporated into a new section. There's other material, I have in mind for that section, but it's almost looking like a separate article! (Basically looting - most ARP wardens and about a third of the London Fire brigade were charged with looting at some time during the war, strikes - the worst record for days lost to strikes in Britain (apart from the General Strike), occurred during WWII. In fact, possibly the General strike should get a mention somewhere, but this is not limited to the East End (where do you stop?).
The plan for Cockney is to mention them in the intro, and briefly state the relationship of the tongue to the area. Then expand as the lead into culture, as the stereotype - partly built on war-time propaganda - has a major impact on 20th century images of the area.
I have been asked to provide more detail in the intro to the history section; I'll put in a para' or two about ecclesiastic lands, crown seizures and labour conditions.
Lastly, I'll tidy up the rest of the culture section.

That should keep me busy. Kbthompson 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your support. I think the current version meets all the requests for more explication and covers the deficiencies you had identified in your review. I hope any further changes on my part will only be tweaking. Any other comments? Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've done some tidying, and I think most of the comments above have been dealt with. Question for the experienced FA reviewers: Does the article need to include (birth-death) dates next to blue-linked people, as it does now? Good work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with such a broad time-scale dates have been included against people in order to give some appreciation of the era being talked about. Where possible events have been dealt with chronologically, but sometimes it also makes sense to mention what (and who) happened next. I shall, of course, accede to wiser heads. (... and thank you for your efforts). Kbthompson (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nicely written, well referenced. Would prefer the image sizes removed per the WP:MOS though. Frankly this is of a standard that WP should aim for across the board. Regan123 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good article. The Further Reading section needs some tidying (i.e. missing comma after surname on a few entries). Question for experienced FA reviewers: would a different citation style, such as APA, Chicago, Harvard, MLA, or Turabian, where the surname precedes the first name, be preferable? Rosiestephenson (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thank you. I've added those commas. I think you would be right about citation style for an academic work, however such a style would make linking to authors wiki articles quite onerous. I think the templates {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} provide some element of further standardisation but again would increase the article size (the additional size doesn't count for the purposes of assessment, but there is a practical limit). WP:CITE gives specific guidance on citing sources and in my understanding provides considerable latitude in the way they are presented, as long as the information is there. If I work on another, I'll certainly consider using that style and tools. Kbthompson (talk) 12:52, 28 November 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.