Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peterborough

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 promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Peterborough

[edit]

previous FAC

I believe this article has improved significantly since the last nomination. Many of the comments made in that discussion have now been taken on board. Chrisieboy 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good article, but I do have some comments:
  1. Coat of arms image is non-free
  2. The article has very short paragraphs (for example the Modern History section), making it difficult to read. Try combining paragraphs and generate a more natural flow of text.  Done
  3. Quite a few paragraphs actually are or contain lists (Places of interest, Geography, Affiliations). Most of them would be better off in normal text.
  4. Given its size, some more images could be nice, perhaps a map (or satellite image) of the city or of the city with its surroundings  Done
  5. The geography section also discusses the accent spoken by the people (which would be more suitable under demographics)
  6. References 8,9,11,12,100 and 103 are obscure. What are they referring to?  Done
  7. The style of the references is very random, which could be avoided by moving them all to the Category:Citation templates system
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for taking the time to read the article and comment. In response to the above:

  • 1. I'm not really sure what can be done about this. A common feature (rightly) of the infobox for all UK cities/ local government districts (aswell as counties) are their armorial bearings. In the UK, arms are granted to the city/district or county council as body corporate, rather than to the city/district or county in itself and are therefore protected under Crown copyright. These interpretations have been obtained with permission and, to illustrate the subject in question for encyclopedic purposes, constitutes fair use here. I have added a rationale to this effect.
  • 2. The last two paragraphs in particular are brief (both two sentences), but they are self-contained units each dealing with a distinct point.
  • 3. Places of interest is written wholly in prose, maybe the symbols are misleading but I think they contribute significantly to the readability aswell as the asthetics of the article; Geography includes a list of areas/ villages, but is otherwise in prose. I think it's important to include this list of wikilinks collectively; and similarly Affiliations is in the common format insofar as it lists twin towns with national flagicon, but is otherwise written in prose.
  • 4. Another picture or two would be good. As it stands at least the majority of printed pages have an image.
  • 5. This could be moved, although it does refer heavily to local geography. See geographical accent at Accent (linguistics)#General discussion.
  • 6. These citations refer to opus citatum (the work cited) and ibidem (the same place), page numbers are given where different. They comprise only six of the 106 references given.
  • 7. The references are consistent and presented according to established academic practice. The use of citation templates is contentious and therefore optional. ( A seperate alphabetical list of sources might be helpful though.  Done )

Chrisieboy 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation then:
1. I understand the difficulty, apparently its used similar in other FAs dealing with cities, so this is not a real problem I suppose.
2. Yes they are self-contained units, but many self-contained units after each other do not automatically make a good flowing text. An article reads much better if there is a logical flow of reasoning and text, rather than a lot of seperate self-contained units.
3. Same reasoning as for 2.
5. Yes its related to geography, but not it is not geographical information
6. Make them full references then, or use references more then one time, which is common on Wikipedia
7. No they are not consistent: sometimes the pages numbers are between brackets, sometimes at the end; books are missing ISBN numbers; some websites have accessdates, others do not. The use of cite timeplates might be contentious, it helps getting concistency.
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the London Gazette edit for consistency, all page numbers appear in brackets. Each source gives a date, either of original publication, in which case any link is complimentary, or of retrieval in the case of internet sources. ( I can add ISBNs, although these are not required.  Done ) Cheers, Chrisieboy 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I read in the manual of style somewhere (but can't immediately find it) that op cit and ibid were generally deprecated on Wikipedia. Look at this way, most people are unlikely to read through the whole reference list, they may check for one or two specific points, and since the footnotes are (basically) ordered as they apepar, cites from the same work can be widely separated, the user then has to work their way through the list until they can find what the op cit actaully refers to. Even if ibid is used for two references which are initially adjacent to each other, the order of paragraphs may be chagned, or an additional citiation introduced, which breaks this up. Better to fully cite each entry. I did previously spend some time converting all the references to use the "cite" series of templates, for the very reason of consistency. However, User:163.167.129.134 seems dead-set against them for some reason. If you look at template talk:LondonGazette you will also see that I've been slowly trying to get DavidCane (talk · contribs) to bring it line with the cite templates. David Underdown 09:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to change the six ibid. /op.cit. refs. In terms of templates, at the very least I think we have to change all 100 other refs. (a major task) or none. Chrisieboy 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no vested interest in the use of citation templates but the list as it stands does seem a bit ragged. You seem to be resisting the use of cite templates for references on the grounds of the work involved but are claiming that they are contentious. The citation templates of WP:CITE states "citation templates should not be added against consensus" but a consensus does not yet appear to have been reached - the discussion with David Underdown at Talk:Peterborough#Citation templates back in March does not seem to have reached an agreement one way or another and the comments of Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) above also promote the use of citation templates. Also, by reverting the use of the {{LondonGazette}} template you have reduced the information available - the page numbers are no longer given.--DavidCane 12:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no consensus to use them. If the two Davids want to help perhaps we could look at 1/3 each. I personally don't think that this stands in the way of FA status though. The information is all there and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates clearly states that the use of templates is contentious and therefore optional. This issue aside, would the two David's like to express support or opposition for the nomination overall. Chrisieboy 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not using the cite templates indeed does not stand in the way of FA, but a ragged, inconsistent reference list does. FA is not only about making sure the information is there, but also about presenting it well. Apart from that, I am afraid this FAC does have more chance of passing if you are a bit more willing to make changes that are suggested by others. For example, issues like the use of ibid and op. cit. also were brought up in the earlier FAC discussion but not dealt with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a past contributor to the article, I don't think I should do more than comment. As I say, I did put at least some references into "cite" form earlier in the year, going back through the history would posibly save a bit of time in putting these together. The issue should be raised on the article talk page again, and on User talk:163.167.129.134. David Underdown 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the edit history, you put two into cite. That leaves the other 104! 84.64.199.128 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I am not asking for the references to go into the cite templates, I am asking for a decent, consistent references list (and several other things as detailed above). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) you'll find a few more than that if you go back to march, plus I found a number of actual articles on the ET website where previously the reference just said "Peterborough Evening Telegraph". If I hadn't been over-ruled in my previous attempt to standardise on the use of templates, then the majority of references would either have been added in that form, or immediately converted. But that's all water under the bridge now. David Underdown 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has not received much attention lately, the issues raised have been addressed, either in edits to the article (where marked  Done) or in the above discussion. Additional material has also been introduced since nomination. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, this article has the following attributes:
  • 1a. It is well written, the prose is engaging and of a professional standard.
  • b. It is comprehensive, the article does not neglect any major facts or details.
  • c. It is factually accurate, claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. They are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a section in which sources are set out.
  • d. It is neutral, the article presents views fairly and without bias.
  • e. It is stable, the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day.
  • 2a. It contains a concise lead section that summarises the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections.
  • b. It contains a system of hierarchical headings that is not overwhelming.
  • c. It contains consistently formatted citations using footnotes where they are appropriate.
  • 3. It contains images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images (ie. armorial bearings) meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly.
  • 4. It is of appropriate length (72 kb), staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.
I continue to believe therefore, that it meets the criteria for a featured article and strongly support its promotion. Chrisieboy 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the issues raised have been addressed, as I disagree. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One image was added (Image:Cecilsr.JPG) with the vague caption "Lord Paramount of Peterborough". The term "lord of paramount" is not explained in the article, nor does the article or the caption explain who exactly the person in the image is.
    • References are still quite random and still contain "ibid" and "op. cit."
    • The section "Media" is hardly referenced"
    • The section "Places of interest" still reads almost like a list (Burghley House is...; Longthorpe Tower is...;Flag Fen is..; etc...)
    • Dialect is still discussed under Geography
Response Two commons images have been added to the article and two have been enlarged. I take exception (see above) to your claim that the references are "still quite random." You did not previously mention inadequate references and I do not accept that this is the case (the article contains 111 in total). The (fairly short) section you mention contains two, the remainder is not contentious and does not require referencing. You state "The section Places of interest still reads almost like a list", but it is not a list? Although they may not be to your preference, icons are provided on Wikipedia presumably for use in articles. Accent (not dialect) is still discussed under Geography for the reasons given above, I have not moved it because I do not believe Demographics is a more appropriate place for it, however, I would be more than happy for you or another editor to make a RfC. The dynamic nature of Wikipedia and the subject-matter means that the article will evolve even with FA status, I do not believe that any of the objections you raise stand in the way of promotion. Which of the criteria specifically do you feel is not met? Cheers, Chrisieboy 21:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. (a) "Well written": Although certainly not horrible, the prose is far from professional. Examples include the very short paragraphs and list-like description of the places of interest (I have no objections to the icons, but there are other, better, ways to start sentences than with "XXX is...")  Done
1. (c) Claims are supported with specific evidence: Many statements (sometimes almost complete paragraphs as explained above) lack citations. Those statements might not be contentious, but are certainly also not general knowledge.  Done
2. (c) consistently formatted inline citations: Web citations lack last accessdates and still use of "op. cit." and "ibid"  Done
3. It has images ... with succinct captions: The "lord paramount" image has a caption that hardly explains who and in what function he is seen in the image.
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to comment, but I do disagree. Please review the above discussion, so we do not keep going over the same ground. As I have previously stated, each source gives a date, either of original publication, in which case any link is complimentary, or of retrieval in the case of internet sources. All claims are supported with specific references (111 of them), please see Wikipedia:When to cite. You state "Although certainly not horrible, the prose is far from professional," which is a little unfair and (again) something you had not previously mentioned. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and if you can improve the standard of English, please do so. I would be interested to hear what other editors feel as this discussion is not moving forward. As it is, I stand by my comments — the dynamic nature of Wikipedia and the subject-matter means that the article will evolve even with FA status, I do not believe that any of the objections you raise seriously stand in the way of promotion. Chrisieboy 09:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the opinion of more people would be wanted here, but I disagree that I brought a new aspect regarding prose. Please see point 2 and 3 of the first comments I made on August 22 (and no, I do not agree point 2 has been fully fixed yet), these are the exact same points I gave now as rationale for criterium 1a (you asked me for pointing to specific criteria, which I didn't do in my original comment). With regard to the references, the links are in most cases not complimentary. Lets take some examples: ref 69: exclusive on-web reference, but no accessdate; ref 55: either this is an exclusive on-web reference, in which case the accessdate is missing, or it has been published elsewhere (paper? tv?) and the reference is lacking the details of that. Anyway, I'll refrain from commenting hereafter as we are waiting for input from other people. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly there is a problem with your browser. Ref. 69. gives a published date of 22 February 2006; Ref. 55 a published/ broadcast date of 20 May 2004 20:01 BST. Cheers, Chrisieboy 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about nr 55, I struck it above. But ref 69 does not state any other publication then online, only gives the publisher (the university), hence, it is an online only reference. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a press release, not an "online only reference," so you may want to strike that out too. Cheers, Chrisieboy 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the offending ibid. and op. cit. as per Wikipedia:Footnotes, multiple refs. are now used in cases where page nos. are not different. You learn something new every day! Chrisieboy 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reset indent) For information (taken from Wikipedia, six refs. cited) language geography is the branch of human geography that studies the geographic distribution of language or its constituent elements. There are two principal fields of study within the geography of language: the geography of languages, which deals with the distribution through history and space of languages and linguistic geography, which deals with regional linguistic variations within languages. Demographics, on the other hand, refers to selected population characteristics as used in government, marketing or opinion research, or the demographic profiles used in such research.

Accent should therefore stay where it is; at the very most Geography could be renamed Geography and linguistics. Cheers, Chrisieboy 15:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, you are right, there are other, better, ways to start sentences than with "XXX is...". I have now reworked Places of interest to avoid this. I have also added further media refs. on ownership of the press (these have retrieved dates as they are online only) and history of Emap. Cheers, Chrisieboy 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Sorry, because a lot of work's clearly gone in, but I chose to start with the History section and had so many problems with just the first few parags ([1]) that I have concerns that this FA is premature. I recommend going back to PR and getting these sorts of things ironed out before returning here. Sorry again. --Dweller 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the points you have raised, Wikipedia:When to cite clearly states If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence, unless the material is particularly contentious. This is not contentious. I have however added a ref. for the Antonine Itinerary, although I was not logged-in. Chrisieboy 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have also added ref. for the Peterborough Chronicle. I hope this, and comments at Talk:Peterborough#Recent citation requests, negate your concerns. Chrisieboy 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel all reasonable suggestions have now been actioned (incl. those outstanding from the previous FAC) and that, in the absence of any further objections, this article meets the criteria set out for a featured article and should be promoted. In its current form I do not see how this article can be improved further. It is consistent, both within itself and WP, and uses the available resources (templates, categories, wikilinks etc.), integrating well into the encyclopaedia.
  • 1a. It is well written, the prose is engaging and of a professional standard. Short paras. have been consolidated where possible.
  • b. It is comprehensive, the article does not neglect any major facts or details. It contains a disambiguation link and a see also section linking to articles giving further, more detailed information on politics, local government etc. and wikilinks to many other Peterborough-related articles eg. the Cathedral, college.
  • c. It is factually accurate, claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. They are supported with specific evidence and external (dated) citations; this involves the provision of a section in which printed sources are set out alphabetically complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
  • d. It is neutral, the article presents views fairly and without bias.
  • e. It is stable, the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day.
  • 2a. It contains a concise lead section that summarises the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections.
  • b. It contains a system of hierarchical headings that is not overwhelming.
  • c. It contains consistently formatted citations using footnotes (currently 118) where they are appropriate. Instances of ibid. and op. cit. have been replaced with multiple refs. in keeping with Wikipedia:footnotes#Citing a footnote more than once.
  • 3. It contains images where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status (commons, public domain). Non-free images (ie. armorial bearings) meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly as fair use.
  • 4. It is of appropriate length (81 kb — exactly 10 pages of readable prose, excl. footnotes and bibliography, when printed), staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. This is the max. recommended, but appropriate for an historic and growing UK city.
Can User:Dweller and User:Reinoutr please specify precisely which of these criteria they continue to feel is not met or withdraw their opposition. I am, of course, willing to address the concerns of other editors aswell. Chrisieboy 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23rd September issues

Much improved and pretty close to FA standard - a credit to all concerned. I do have some marginal niggles - I get the feeling some of the text has been lifted wholesale from the out of copyright source. Maybe that's why the "Soke" is mentioned 6 times before any Wikilink is used (and an implied defintion is given) and the anachronistic term "gaol" used.

The OED states In British official use the forms with G are still current.
Fine, if idiosyncratic. Please though explain the Soke the first time it's used.
First occurance now wikilinked.
Thanks. Struck.

Other minor problems:

  • "The local topography is notoriously flat and low-lying, and in some places lies below sea-level." exact same phrase in Lead and main body. Not so concerned with that, but if it's so notorious, at least one source should be found.
See Ref. 116 Brown, Chris State of the Environment Report 1998 Chapter 11: Physical Background (pp.301-306) Cambridgeshire County Council (retrieved 19 July 2007).
Great. Please cite.
It is, see above (ref. 116). As we have already been over, Wikipedia:When to cite clearly states If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence, unless the material is particularly contentious.
Need not. But When to cite also says "Not every statement in an article needs a citation, but if in doubt, provide one." And this is FAC. For Featured Articles. The cream of our work. It should aspire to the highest possible standards. I'm not picking on you - this is what every FA I've worked on has had to produce. And it's hardly difficult. I don't know why you object to it. --Dweller 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I object, because it is not required and I honestly believe that rather than improve, it will diminish the article.
  • "The city council's master plan running to 2012 draws focus on the £1 billion regeneration of the city centre and immediately surrounding areas" Ugh. Is this lifted from a political website? It's horrid. "Master plan" is tremendously POV. An opponent of it could use a different adjective. If it's an official title (eg "The Peterborough Master Plan") it should be capitalised and in quotes or italics
The OED defines master plan as a large-scale or comprehensive plan of action.
Comprehensive is POV. Unsure about "large-scale". Either way, it would be better in quotes or cited.
Disagree. That is your POV.
Also, the language is tortuous - is this ([2]) someone ripping off your copy? Please change it - it actually doesn't make any sense - the master plan "draws focus" on the £1bn regeneration - isn't the master plan a plan for the regeneration, rather than something entirely separate?
I will have a look at this.  Done
  • "Prayers for the opening of the fair were said" - the text says the Fair still exists, so why not present tense?
Prayers are no longer said.
Super. Please clarify.
It is clarified by the use of the word were.
If it was clear, I wouldn't raise it. When you say something exists and then imply it doesn't it's confusing. Why so resistant to suggestion? If you're not interested in improving the article to the highest possible standards, don't bring it to FAC.
I am interested in improving the article (see above discussion), but this does not mean blindly implementing everything you say. I have given an explanation for not implementing your changes in every case where I have not implemented them. You can be wrong sometimes!
Lordy... I'm frequently wrong. And happy to admit to it when it's pointed out, as in the occurrence you point to. --Dweller 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted anyway. Chrisieboy 19:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was the Great Northern Railway's main line from London to York, which opened in 1850, that transformed Peterborough from a market town to an industrial centre." is a claim that requires citing
See Ref. 11 Davies (pp.26-27).
Great. Please cite.
It is, see above (ref. 11).  Done
  • "The area was the UK's leading producer of bricks for much of the twentieth century." cite
See Ref. 11 Davies (pp.26-27).
Great. Please cite.
It is, see above (ref. 11).
  • "From 2006 to 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place." presumably this is under way, so the future tense makes it seem out of date
Started in 2006, will last until 2012. Most major developments are yet to happen.
Please amend the sentence, because saying "from 2006... will take place" doesn't work.
I will have a look at this.  Done Chrisieboy 10:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*The two "2005"s in relation to Mawhinney are a little clumsy.

Sorted. Chrisieboy 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers
Thanks. Struck.

will continue here. --Dweller 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state precisely and specifically which of the criteria (listed above) are not met. As these are only "marginal niggles," I do not feel that they stand in the way of promotion. Would you like to withdraw your opposition at least, if not actually lend your support to the nomination..? Chrisieboy 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let's clear the air here.

  1. I look forward to lending my support, once all the marginal niggles (and I've not even finished going through the article) are settled. What's the rush? The point is to deliver a FA quality article.
  2. Every good faith contributor to FAC wants the same thing.
  3. Don't perceive detailed constructive criticism as someone stubbornly blocking the progress of the article to FA for no good reason. You were incorrect and in breach of AGF to characterise me on Raul's talk page ([3]) that I won't review my oppose.
  4. I have a major and well-founded concern over the use of citation throughout the article. I understand that you believe you are within the terms of WP:CITE that you, erm, cite, but cannot understand why you won't do something that would be easy for you to address and would bring the article to the highest standards. In a case where the source materials you are citing are not easily accessible, it is very hard for anyone to verify what is and isn't presented as sourced within any paragraph. Furthermore, interpolations of new material by future editors will make it impossible to see that anything is cited, other than the sentence immediately preceding the reference. However, it could be I'm being too harsh. I've already asked one FA regular to review my comments here. I'll ask a couple more. If they disagree with me, I'll happily admit I'm wrong (as I always do).
  5. I have found multiple trivial copy issues wherever I've looked (I repeat, I've not even finished reviewing the article). Each individually would not stop me supporting any article for FA, but combined, make a fail on WP:WIAFA 1a. I contribute here in hope we can address all of them and I can knock this on the head.

I know FAC is stressful. I've been here before (six times). Contributors make you jump hoops. But all in the name of making the article truly excellent. You may find some of the advice I (and others) wrote here User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates useful. Yours, in a spirit of good faith co-operation --Dweller 12:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dweller is apparently taking a short wikibreak.

I agree with Dweller that the article improved significantly, but although I would gladly see this article up to FA standards, I unfortunately also do not understand the reluctance of the nominator to change some issues that are really minor to change, yet important (in at least my opinion) for the article to meet FA criteria. I've mentioned these (multiple times) before, but as the nominator asked, here we go:

  • It fails 1a, as the prose, although not bad, is not yet up to professional standard. Its getting better all the time, but at this time still fails to provide a good flowing text in significant parts of the article.
  • It fails 2c, as large parts of the text are still unreferenced (yes the information might be non-contentious, but it certainly is not obvious information). Examples of completely unreferenced sections are: 2nd paragraph of "Media", 1st paragraphs of "Geography", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "politics" and 1st and 2nd paragraph of "Public utilities".
  • It fails 3, as the captions to images (most notably the "lord paramount" image) are insufficient or even not explained or discussed in the text itself.
Please see Early history, which states In 1576 Bishop Scamble sold the lordship of the hundred of Nassaburgh, which is coextensive with the Soke, to Queen Elizabeth I, who gave it to Lord Burghley.... Chrisieboy 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if a serious effort is made to address the issues with the article, I'd be happy to support it. Also again, I am not gonna argue about these issues anymore. I am only replying because the nominator specifically asked me to do so above. What we need is the opinion of independent editors. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choppy paras. now consolidated wherever possible.
"notoriously" sticks out as a bit of an odd word in the lead. I'm presuming it's there becasue the area is notoriously flood-prone? If so this should be explained. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left it in the lead but removed the second occurrence and expanded under Geography. Chrisieboy 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given there is no history of ... subarticle, I'd put a few extra sentences on bronze age and roman stuff, what artifacts were found, what's at the site etc. This bit looks sketchy.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is elaborated under Places of interest. There are (linked) articles on Flag Fen etc. Chrisieboy 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By putting the Flag Fen stuff in the Bronze Age section, that stubby bit is bolstered, a bit of repetitious text removed and a long listy things to see section is shortened a bit.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, which is coextensive with the Soke, - is ungainly, why not "which adjoins/is adjacent to/adjoining." or some similarly clear clause —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is coextensive or conterminous with, not adjoining or adjacent to. Chrisieboy 08:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"lies alongside" or "shares a boundary with" then? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words it is coextensive. I am not going to change this, it does not "lie alongside" and I do not understand how this clarifies rather than confuses the statement. Please see the OED. Chrisieboy 17:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is in the OED, it's just a highly unusual word - clear prose is about not using unusual words when commoner plain ones will suffice. However I'll concede this is not a deal-breaker.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. - this sounds like advertorial, is vague and doesn't mean anything but that there's an overriding long term plan. This needs to be more specific about how the town centre is planned to evolve or otherwise remove.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It outlines the plan, without going into too much detail. Chrisieboy 17:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me it doesn't outline anything except come across like advertorial statement basically stating there's a plan. (what plan does it outline exactly ??) I really feel this bit is unencyclopedic and needs to be reworded or excluded. However, to be fair I'll see what others think.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to Oppose on the basis of this sentence The Plan outlines a new vision for the city centre,identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15-20 years. - being lifted out of the city's glossy advertorial plan here. Please rewrite in non-advertorial format or remove. I'll happily support once this section addressed cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are opposing promotion to FA on the basis of ONE sentence in an 82kb article, although you previously said you would see what others think! How would you re-word it..? Chrisieboy 09:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - replace "Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progressing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development." with "The resulting £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounds is scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2012; currently focussing on the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter. - and thus rid the advertorial fluff and mixed development waffle.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to indulge you (although I do not agree with you) in order to get you to support this nomination. However, what you have written does not make sense. You want to replace:
  • Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan outlines a new vision for the city centre, identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progressing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development with
  • The resulting £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounds is scheduled to take place between 2006 and 2012; currently focussing on the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter. Chrisieboy 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have toned down the contentious sentence, taking out the waffle about a new vision for the city centre (although I was not logged-in at the time). Chrisieboy 12:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You (a) missed the other contentious sentence and (b) didn't address the fact that the section came word-for-word from advertorial council fluff-piece. I am now happy to support as is. I am not sure how to continue discussion but right this second you now have consensus to promote, ok? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding some criticism before the second ref., but had an edit conflict. Will you consider a compromise..? I think:

  • Between 2006 and 2012 a £1 billion re-development of the city centre and surrounding areas will take place. The master plan identifies investment priorities and provides guidelines on shaping the physical form of the city centre over the next 15–20 years. Proposals are already progressing for the north of Westgate, the south bank and the station quarter, where Network Rail is preparing a major mixed use development. (ref.) Whilst recognising the reconfiguration of the relationship between the city and station is critical, English Heritage found the current plans for Westgate unconvincing and felt more thought should be given to the vitality of the historic core. (ref.)

reads better. Chrisieboy 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you have linguistics in the Geography section (?) - may need a subheading?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this, please see the above discussion. Chrisieboy 09:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dweller has changed Geography to Geography and linguistics. Chrisieboy 17:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Chrisieboy just indiscriminately reverted my good intentions to improve the captions of the images in the article [4] to help him get this up to FA. The captions he reverted to do NOT explain the images shown. What is the "butter cross"? What is a lord paramount? (I even started a stub article on that topic for explanation, the link to which he also removed.) I continue to fail to understand why he is so resistant to any good faith help and suggestions with article and I am starting to have WP:OWN issues here. My oppose stands. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See diffs. These captions are way over the top. Good captions should be succinct; the images are all referenced in the text (where I moved your link to lord paramount) Some of yours were largely lifted from the text, all were badly written, eg. "Peterborough Cathedral, seen from the west side" rather than the (correct) The West Front, Peterborough Cathedral; "Minster Precincts of the Peterborough Cathedral" (tautologous). Full stops should not be used, unless the caption is a complete sentence. Sorry, Chrisieboy 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in general the expanded captions were good - we should remember that people may well glance at the images before reading the article, so it is helpful to give a bit more context, rather than expecting them to read the article right away. The exception is the change made to the image of the West Front of the Cathedral. West Front is a specific architectural term, simply saying "seen from the western side" is not (in my view), nearly so descriptive. David Underdown 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further (sorry about the deletion - I wasn't warned about an edit conflict as usually happens). Specifying that the Minster Precincts are around the Cathedral is only tautologous if you understand that the Minster and the cathedral are the same thng - the Minster precincts are the only time that that equivalence is made in Peterborough, unlike e.g. York where the cathedral is universally referred to as "the Minster". Yes there were things to pickon, and they could have used some tidying, but reverting them out of hand was unhelpful. Putting people's backs up is not a good way to get the article to featured status. David Underdown 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment David. I agree that some captions needed a bit of tidying and I was not aware of the West Front naming, so sorry about that. But indeed the very short captions are not helpfull for readers inexperienced with some of these subjects, which is exactly why I added some more information. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also Chrisieboy, for having now changed the captions to be much more descriptive [5]. You certainly did a better job than I did myself, but please remember I was just trying to help you with the article. Image concerns are dealt with and have been struck in my comment above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportКруто --Miwanya 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having another look at the current version of the article, I think that the prose has significantly increased since I first commented here (the paragraphs now form real paragraphs instead of seperate sentences) and at least part of the unsourced statements have been addressed. Also, the air appears to have cleared as far as I am concerned. If enough other editors agree that this should become FA, my previous objections should not stand in that way. My comments above and my oppose have been struck. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:14, 26 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Peterborough&oldid=775612307"