Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London/archive2

Add links
Source: 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 04:56, 3 September 2007.

London

previous FAC

Great article. I think it deserves to be promoted to FA. Mercenary2k 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some fact tags, and the categories indicate a call for cleanup. There also appear to be some image formatting issues in "Transport". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All the Fact Tags have been replaced with proper citations. The sub-categories in various sections have also been removed and sections merged. I am not sure what image formatting issues you have with "Transport". All images there are either released by the author or are part of Wikipedia commons. Mercenary2k 06:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - some citations have missing retrieval dates or aren't properly formatted (for example ref #97 or #39, but there are more of them). Ref #10 is tagged for verification. Ref #41 is from skyscrapercity.com forum and I doubt if it will survive (see WP:EL). The Transport images comment doesn't mean licensing, all seem to be OK, but they bump into each other and it doesn't look nice. I would suggest re-arranging. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All Citations have now a standard Retrieval Date format. The Citation from Skyscrapercity has been re-directed from their forum to their news site. The Images in the "Transport" section have been changed. 1 Image has been deleted while others have been re-arranged to prevent them from bumping into each other. Mercenary2k 08:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for solving these issues, though my oppose still continues. Retrieval dates, as their are full ones, should be linked to enable readers' date preference. I feel that some more citations would be useful, for example:The average price for all properties in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is £894,000 (as reported by the BBC in February 2007) with similar average outlay in most of Central London. – saying that BBC reported that in Feb 2007 isn't enough. A citation would be better, or caption in Sport: The new Wembley Stadium is the most expensive stadium ever built costing £793 million ($1.6 billion) – quite strong claim I think, but these are only examples, there may be more of them. As for MoS, I have found only one point so far, concerning use of WP:DASHes – either use unspaced em dash or spaced en dash (and should be consistent throughout the article). MarkBA t/c/@ 09:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done All Retrieval dates have been wikified. All numerical facts and figures have been cited including the two examples you mentioned. As for MoS, I went through the article and I corrected any that I saw. But a fresh set of eyes should help as well. Let me know if you are satisfied with these changes. Mercenary2k 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dashes still haven't been fixed – either unspaced em (—) or spaced en (–), though for stylistic reasons en dashes are better-looking than a lot of em dashes. That means, for example, this sentence from History: "...first metro system — the London Underground — in 1863." should be either "... – the London Underground – ..." or "...—the London Underground—...". Now I have checked external links and I feel that London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics link aren't necessary for main article, because both have their articles and this one is about London in general. And are sub-links of Transport of London link needed? I think everyone can access them from the main site. Generally, there are too many images in some points, for example here or in the Economy. I would suggest either re-arranging again, if possible, or throwing out. MarkBA t/c/@ 22:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::Oh ok. Now I understand your critique about the Dashes. I will fix them up. I will also get rid of some images. Mercenary2k 02:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed the dashes as you recommended. Take a look and let me know if you are satisfied with the changes. I also got rid of some images as you pointed out that there were too many. I am not quite sure what you mean by London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics having external links. They are wikified and thats it. As for sub-links under Transport of London. I think its ok to have it as it gives more information about transportation in London. Mercenary2k 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean they aren't very appropriate for the London article. I suggest deleting London Eye and 2012 Summer Olympics external links from this article. TfL sub-links are just about appropriate, but I think they can be accessed from that main page, right? And for images, re-arranging also means re-arranging two images, which "sandwich" the text at some point (there are five such places). WP:MOS#Images discourages such practice. MarkBA t/c/@ 11:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed the external links to 2012 Summer Olympics and the London Eye. I also re-arranged and got rid of some images so that they no longer sandwich text between them. Mercenary2k 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As I won't have a chance for longer review next few days and my objections seem to be addressed, I am changing my vote to weak support. MarkBA t/c/@ 05:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why Weak support? What still aren't you satisfied with? Mercenary2k 06:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I haven't checked all aspects (for example prose) which any FA should have and I don't know what others will bring up. As I won't have much time to check these for few days, the weak support vote is supposed to mean that I won't block promotion. If there won't be much to fix anyway, I'll be happy to strengthen my vote for this article. MarkBA t/c/@ 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After scanning through again, I've found one [citation needed] tag (Economy) and uncreated category (Government). MarkBA t/c/@ 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Economy" section mentions finance, services, tourism and cargo transport. Is there absolutely no industry (in the sence of producing goods, not services) in London? In the "Parks and gardens" section, London is described as a Green City. What about smog and other kinds of pollution? — Kpalion(talk) 09:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added more information which talks about London Manufacturing Industry and Information in regards to the pollution in london.Mercenary2k 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Population and Density sections of the infobox need to be fixed. Mgiganteus1 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed the Infobox of Population and Density and created it along the lines of New York City's infobox. Mercenary2k 08:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article lacks a map similar to other UK towns articles. At best it would be a map that outlines the different definitions of London as described in the "Definition" section. Could someone create such a map? Thank you. CG 07:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added map. Mercenary2k 08:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c and 2, too much pending MOS work. I cleaned up some date linking and dashes, but there is a lot left (see WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE). Solo years should not be linked, full dates should. The article looks like it was put together by different editors with different styles; some sections conform to MOS, others don't. This is not compelling prose, for this we have See also templates at tops of sections: Many films have also used London as a location and have done much to shape international perceptions of the city. See main article London in film. Citations are not fully and consistently formatted, see WP:CITE/ES. All sources need a publisher, websources need last accessdate, author and publisher should be identified when available. MANY publishers are missing, so sources can't be evaluated for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. It's infested with redundant wording; there are problems of logical and fuzziness. Let's look at the first three stub-paragraphs in the lead.
    • "The ancient City of London to which the name originally belonged still retains its tiny mediaeval boundaries"—Remove "to which the name originally belonged" as redundant. "Still" and "retains"? What is left makes little sense tense-wise, anyway (past juddering with present). Tiny boundaries? What, one cm thick?
    • You could drop "around". Drop "today" ("is" does that). Drop "all". Replace "one of the major global cities" with just "a global city".
    • "city within city"
    • Population of 7.5 million as of 2006 (that's dogs and cats, is it?) and a metropolitan area population of 12–14 million people (that's in what year?).
    • "London shown within England", says the caption. Get rid of this caption. You might as well add to the previous caption "tower pionting towards sky".
    • "300 different languages"—remove "different". Tony 10:40, 1 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/London/archive2&oldid=1078802639"