Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Canterbury/1

Canterbury[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: With thanks to the editors who worked to improve the article, kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2008. Article suffers from uncited statements, outdated statements, one sentence paragraphs, and some sections that could probably be expanded. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've fixed the uncited claims by adding refs and removing text as necessary. Some outdated claims have been removed. Very short paragraphs and sections have been merged. On the "could probably be expanded", well, yes, that's usually true everywhere, but the criterion for GA is "covers the main points", and there can be no doubt that this article does that. If there are specific issues remaining, I'll be happy to address them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The broadness question is interesting, it's true the article doesn't have to be comprehensive, but there does seem to be large untouched gaps. There is a Geography section, but it says nothing on urban geography (aside from a tantalising picture of city walls). I don't know quite what is happening in Governance, but it's briefness seems to leave it jumping between topics with no clear structure (speaking of structures, "After it was declared redundant and de-consecrated" presumably refers to some church structure, but it's not apparent in the article). There's a demographics section, but it's so sparse as to not even mention the "substantial student population" seen as important enough for the lead. The lead itself could use expansion, although here to better capture what is in the article rather than what is missing. CMD (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban geography: added paragraph, refs.

Governance: Named the missing building, added refs.

Demographics: Added details of student population. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Edited the lead slightly. It seems a fair summary of the contents.

For leads, I look to see whether topics deemed important enough to have their own section are mentioned. I don't think this is fully there, but the edits were an improvement. The new urban geography paragraph is great. CMD (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little more. I'm really not going to add that the city has a bus station to the lead: every city has one of those, so the wooden "section = mention" equation won't do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I've promoted it as a wooden equation, but happy to step away from this. As a final note I found a direct piece of copying from a 2008 access date, and feel the lead mention of the UNESCO status should be something worth exploring in the body. CMD (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the improvements by Chiswick Chap. I've not checked citations etc, but prima facie it seems OK, despite some short paras etc. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.