Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/East Riding of Yorkshire/1

East Riding of Yorkshire[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Result: Citation needed tags remain, while some sections are very out of date (see below for details). Little improvement has been made. Article thus fails 2&3 of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires some work to meet GA criteria again.

I placed 6 cn tags, but there are more places that are uncited
Quite a few parts need to be updated. For instance, climate data is 20 years out-of-date, religion is from 2021 and so forth. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have appended six citations to cover off some of the CN tags and those areas without a cite, mostly historical and geographical. Will research weather data. The joy of all things (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks :). Let me know when you'd like me to do a more indepth review :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke ooh, that might be a while. I've not done these before, but I assume there is a time factor? Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As long as improvements are being made and you give us an update every one/two weeks, the nomination will not be closed. The goal here is article improvement :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magic, thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new weatherbox for Kingston upon Hull which shows data between 1991 and 2020. The weather station at High Mowthorpe is actually in North Yorkshire (but within spitting distance of the East Riding). However, data for there was harder to come by. The joy of all things (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Femke, the religion data is, as you say quite old. Do you think converting that to a template and collapsing it, so as to preserve it fo those to see, but updating to the 2021 census with a new template which is uncollapsed. Does that make sense? Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that - sorry - cannot find a suitable template. I will just have to create a new table. The joy of all things (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New table sounds good. Per WP:NOHIDE, hiding wouldn't have been a good idea. I typically only include historical data if it still gets weight in current sourcing. Otherwise articles get too bloated. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Femke and The joy of all things: how are we getting on? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time for another review - believe me, I am not that naive as to think we are where we need to be! The religion and climate data have been updated to 2020/2021 from 2001, and additional cites have been imported into areas lacking. I know the transport section needs an update. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some old sources in the history section, but I believe this is still adequate at GA level.

The erosion paragraph can use some updating

The renewable energy section is highly out of date. It may be better to convert this section to energy in general?

The second paragraph of public services is highly out of date too and not written in summary style. I think it can be replaced by 1/3 the text and combined with the next paragraph.
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:17, 3 March 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.