Talk:Kingston upon Hull/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Gary King (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would've passed this so quickly. I think most of the data itself is good, but the placement of images and the organization still needs a lot of work.
  • Unnecessary bold text in the bullet points under 'governance' should be removed per WP:MOS. Y Done
  • The climate chart overlaps into the demographics section over on the right. I'd recommend using {{Average and record temperatures}} instead, which won't do that.
    • Moved chart to top of section as per Manchester article.
      • Replaced previous chart with table and added image--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Demographics is very short, and looks very awkward with a little intro, followed by a table, and then two footnotes for the table below. I question whether the demographics section can be really called "complete" at this point. One thing that would help would be to move the 'religion' section into 'demographics' -- it really shouldn't be it's own main section anyway.
    • Add some employment detail and added Religion section to end without header.
  • Demote 'transportation and infrastructure'; it should be one of the last sections in the article. Infrastructure related things aren't nearly as important as things like culture and economy.
    • Moved to later in article above Public services.
  • 'Economy' has a very short sentence on the port, and then another sentence on some businesses based in the city, comprising the first, very short paragraph. Then, there's a rather large paragraph on shopping centers, which are not nearly as notable and don't contribute nearly as much to the economy as businesses based here. Unless, of course, the town derives much of its economy from tourism, but I don't see that mentioned here. I'm not getting anything of value out of the table of regional trends; there's insufficient text introducing the table, and the table really doesn't offer much to the article. In short, the economy section needs major expansion and is does not meet the "completeness" criterion at WP:WIAGA.
    • Pulled table and slight expansion on port & businesses
  • The 'regeneration' section should be moved to history, since it's historical in nature. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to put this section several sections separated from history.
    • Moved to end of History section
  • 'Public services' is really connected to 'infrastructure', and should be included with that section.
    • Remove header and leave under Transport and infrastructure headings.
  • Many of the subsections under 'culture' are very short, and could be expanded. Although this is not so much of a GA-related issue, moving forward I think it would be wise to not have individual subsections for 'literature', 'theatre', 'classical music', etc, and instead try to focus on weaving the various elements of culture into one coherent, well-written main section on culture.
    • Noted for later work
      • Removed section headings copyedited for better flow resized and moved images--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The section on 'Reputation' is not normally included as a main section in city articles, and its inclusion has serious WP:NPOV issues. It's citing a lot of matters of opinion, and while things like the media citations of, "the worst place to live in Britain" and "The Best and Worst Places to Live in Britain", putting it in a main section like this is putting far too much weight on it. While these two sources technically meet WP:RS, I don't think this much weight should be put into a top 10 list which is essentially an advertisement in disguise as journalism. But also, in the next paragraph, the sentence, "In spite of these issues, many of the city's residents are very proud of Hull, its history, and its traditions, using such terms as "underrated", "thriving", "fantastic", and "wonderful" to describe their home." is cited by a real estate blog, which is not a reliable source. This whole section needs to be removed; some material can be moved to other parts of the article, but as it stands, it does not meet WP:NPOV.
    • Section pulled

At the present time, the article does not meet the GA criteria, and I am delisting it at sending it back to WP:GAN under on hold status. Once the issues are addressed, it can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)