Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheffield/archive2

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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:21, 29 July 2010 [1].

Sheffield[edit]

Sheffield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page
Nominator(s): -- Jack?! 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield has been a featured article before, and over the past few weeks I have been looking at how to get it back up to that standard, mainly alone. It is very well referenced and the sections are all suitable, and is supported with other in depth articles. I have addressed many issues concerned about this article, and made several edits which I felt suitable myself. I feel this article is ready if not very close to be a featured article again, and welcome the feedback. -- Jack?! 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I noticed that the Peer Review is this up. Shouldn't this review be on hold until the review is closed or something? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, you're right. I was meant to close that, but forgot! I've closed it now, as I feel the issues addressed were minor. I have corrected all possible for now. -- Jack?! 03:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are three dab links and two dead links, as well as two redirect links. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please direct me to which? -- Jack?! 03:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The dabs or the links? Either way, you can look at the toolbox on the right. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - No longer issues. -- Jack?! 04:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review - many concerns re: consistent reference formatting. There's a sampling below, but I'm sure I missed a few. Please use consistent formatting for all references.

  • Notes are prose, and should be grammatically correct.
  • Why is Sheffield city Council sometimes italicized and sometimes not? See for example ref 3 vs ref 10
  • Why do only some refs include publisher location? See for example ref 13 vs ref 21
  • Ref 15: either note online edition or include pg numbers
done —Jeremy (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: page(s)?
  • Need consistent formatting for multiple authors. See for example ref 4 vs ref 37
  • Ref 27: check publisher
  • Ref 31: publisher?
  • Ref 34: typos
  • Refs 32 and 34: titles inconsistent with linked page, publisher should be identical
  • Some of the Sheffield City Council pages have inconsistent formatting - for example, refs 35 and 36
  • Ref 37: need space between page numbers and doi
  • Ref 41: 404 Not Found
  • Publisher for ref 46 is Sheffield City Council
  • Publisher for refs 49 and 50 is Office for National Statistics
  • Ref 51: spell out publisher, missing information (like retrieval date)
    • Done. 01:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Refs for census should be formatted consistently - compare refs 49 and 52
  • Ref 54: page number?
done —Jeremy (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author name can have first name or last name first, but should be consistent throughout
  • "pp" shouldn't be used for a single page, but only for page ranges
  • Be consistent in whether "ed(s)" is in parentheses or not
    • Not done - Where? -- Jack?! 02:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • 7 vs 59, might be others. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done No idea what (eds) means, so removed. No others have it. -- Jack?! 03:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Err...sorry, no. Eds in this case stands for editor(s), and it's necessary to distinguish between the editor and the author. They do have to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's kinda annoying being sat here with someone watching your edits, not contributing at all! I fixed the authors anyway. -- Jack?! 04:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, what? I can't fix it because I don't know what format you want it in. I am trying to help, but quite frankly editing the article to actually make it meet the FA criteria is the responsibility of the nominator. If you're not sure what I mean, ask and I'll gladly answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edition usually appears after title, not publisher
  • Use prose publisher instead of URL wherever possible
  • Spell out or link ONS on all appearances in references
    • Done (over a few edits, link here is final one). -- Jack?! 01:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 72: page(s)?
    • Done. Hard to be specific, mentioned many times. -- Jack?! 03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do refs 75 and 21 have a different author list but the same book title?
  • When "Work" is "Publisher website", just include the publisher
  • Ref 82: retrieved in 20096?
  • Be consistent in whether Sheffield City Council is linked or not, or link it on first appearance only; same with BBC
  • Ref 96: publisher?
  • Ref 122: check publisher name
  • Ref 124: publisher
  • Ref 131: retrieval date
  • Ref 138: retrieval date

Sources need some serious cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this, though I'm not an expert on citing sources anymore; forgot alot of it. Any help would be appreciated. -- Jack?! 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the grammar on the first note, but haven't addressed any other issues; given the inconsistencies in citation formatting it's hard to know which format to standardize to. Also, keep in mind that examples given in the above list are likely not the only occurrence of a particular issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done alot of standardising. For example date forms such as 2010-07-17 are now all 17 July 2010. Publishers are all also correct now. -- Jack?! 03:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What do the reviewers think of the pictures? I know a new editor has recently added several new images, which makes the article look better in my opinion. I think the only image that needs to be changed is the one of Sheffield Station, which I may be able to take a new one of soon. -- Jack?! 13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the station photo looks good - it's up to date and it's nice to have a couple of night photos. One thing that definitely needs changing though is the big photo(s) in the infobox. not very representative at all! Over than that, the only problem I can see with the images is that there's never many people in them! St BC (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sheffield/archive2&oldid=1144458208"