Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sheffield/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 [1].

Sheffield[edit]

Toolbox

Review commentary[edit]

Wikiprojects notified. Nominator retired

This article has an extreme lack of citations in some place, while other places are well covered. Secondly, it has accumulated an extremely large amount of examples of notable people, groups over the years, probably due to a large amount of drive-by additions of examples, due to vanity, advertising etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that much of the material added to this article since it became feature is not properly referenced, and some gives no appearance of notability. But I disagree that it has an "extreme lack of citations" - it has a reasonable number, and the core material is referenced. It shouldn't be too difficult to look over the additions and either reference them or remove them for lack of notability. It may, however, be a good chance to utilise more of the information available in paper publications concerning the city - the vast majority of current references are to websites. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Still issues with citations, and there doesn't appear to be a lot of work on fixing these issues. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per own statement YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 3 refs aren't working. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now checked the references and fixed any problems I found. —Jeremy (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It's in need of an overhaul by someone with the dedication to do it right, and it hasn't gotten it since the article was proposed for FAR. The citations are poor (some are dead, lack the correct formatting, or simply aren't very comprehensive), it lacks significant information about the utilities systems, and is generally lacking in some areas when compared with Caversham, New Zealand, one of the latest town FAs -- and the latter location is less than one percent the population of Sheffield. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely improved, but there's still some prose and citation issues. Forex, starting a sentence with a percentage figure is frowned upon. Also, "five are Grade I listed. 42 are Grade II*, the rest being Grade II listed" isn't clear to me. Is the asterisk a note that should be referenced, or is "Grade II*" a classification? I've added a smattering of citation needed tags that should be addressed. Good luck! It's been getting better, and I'd encourage Yellow Monkey to not close this as long as progress is being made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, that statistic needs to be updated. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold. Looks pretty good, but there are two places I think should be cited a little better: the first paragraph of the geography section (maybe refer to a map?) and the sport section (particularly the various minor teams that have child articles. I'd also point out that many places and terms are linked multiple times in the article, occasionally several times in the same section. I removed a few of them, but I think there are others ... the neighborhoods feel like chronic offenders. But these are fairly minor things. The article has been improved a great deal. Kudos to everyone who worked on it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that I have made good progress towards addressing many of the issues raised above. Please re-review the article before deciding on whether or not to delist. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Progress is being made. I'll go through and add citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your help. I have dealt with most of your citation requests either by adding citations or by copyediting the text. There are six remaining for which I can't find citations or I am unsure what to do with--in all of these cases I would not object to the removal of the uncited material. —Jeremy (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Suggest commenting out any uncited content. I see a few things to which I myself could add easy cites, which I will work on later today and tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still see some citations needed issues. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Getting closer... I couldn't find anything about the University of Sheffield being a major music venue. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a primary source is fine. The article doesn't say anything about it having to be "major". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good work - But there is absolutely nothing on Sheffield's climate apart from a small table - that also probably needs expanding. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, this article still needs a good deal of work before it's in keep territory. I saw awkward prose throughout and copyedit needs; will list examples if needed as work progresses. Mixed uses of upper and lower case throughout, and WP:DASH work needed (it's east–west, not east-west, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like work here has stalled; I see no significant process since my post of a week ago. Has there been a review of sources and images? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm travelling a lot at the moment, so don't have much time for editing. If this FARC is still ongoing when I return I will be able to offer more help then. —Jeremy (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The population statistics in the infobox should have sources as it is counter-intuitive to suppose that the population of the entire county of Yorkshire is less than the population of Sheffield's city region.
  • Geoffrey Chaucer isn't from Sheffield. I don't think the picture is particularly pertinent. The Abbey isn't mentioned in the History, so why is it depicted?
  • The climate section needs attention. Sheffield gets 1218 DAYS of frost from December to March? That is obviously impossible. Most of the section isn't even about Sheffield. Talking of a "rain shadow" implies that it is a dry city, when surely it is actually one of the wettest places in Britain? I thought that was one of the reasons the steel industry grew up there, because of the plentiful and constant supply of water (steel production requires thousands of gallons).
  • Mention of Museums Sheffield's climate change exhibit is trivial. I would remove it and merge the section in with a reduced climate section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unless a copy-edit is conducted soon. Here are problems just in the lead. Redundancy is in strong evidence. Good attributes, so let's try to save this one.

  • "The population of the City of Sheffield is estimated at 530,300 people (2007 est.)"—Estimate twice; I'd remove "estimated at".
  • Why is "steel" linked, particularly when two types of steel are linked two seconds later?
  • Remove "eventually"?
  • has increased by 60 per cent in recent years.
  • What is the "overall" economy, as opposed to the economy?
  • "averaging around five per cent annually and, as such, has been growing at a higher rate than has been experienced in Yorkshire and the Humber in general."
  • Remove "located".
  • Noun plus -ing—sometimes OK, but awkward here, as almost always when it's "with + noun + -ing": with much of the city having been built on hillsides. Three "withs" within that many seconds, too. Tony (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through and copyedited the entire article as it currently stands although I've not touched the dashes. I've also corrected the figure regarding ground frost (67 days is far more realistic than 1218!). The Economy section could do with some more citations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) will go through the prose within a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • There's clearly something missing in this sentence from the Carbon footprint and climate change action section: "Through a combination of educational events, a portable exhibit, and community town meetings, developed and promoted a variety of action awareness programs to help Sheffield residents respond to and cope with climate change", but I'm uncertain what it is.
    • The citations need to be formatted consistently; some are formatted manually, and describe the last access date as "Accessed 13 September 2009", whereas others use "Retrieved 2009-08-016"—which obviously ought to be 2009-08-16 anyway. Probably better to consistently use either the {{cite}} template or manual formatting.
      • (I believe that the MoS has changed now, and that YYYY-MM-DD style dates are deprecated except when used as hidden fields to enable sorting.) --Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the climate section: "The area's western and eastern boundaries influence its climate." The article explains that the Pennines to the west create a rain shadow, but says nothing about how Sheffield's eastern boundary shapes its climate.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status? This is long overdue but there was work just a few days ago and it has seen substantial improvement. Is anyone still working on it? Any of the opposers have further comment? Marskell (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of the climate section is unreferenced, and images have not been checked. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Revisiting: spot check reveals that more thorough sifting is required. It's nearly there. Independent copy-edit, fairly quick job, I think.

  • Why is "sea level" linked?
  • "It has over 170 woodlands (covering 10.91 sq mi/28.3 km2),"—I think "It has over 170 woodlands covering 10.91 sq mi (28.3 km2). See top here. But then "square miles" is given in full a few seconds later: please decide for the primary units. Should area be switched from the prevailing metric primary units? Is it a road distance?
  • 10-15. See MoS. Tony (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, this can't seem to get done. I'll ask someone to look at the images if that's one of the last two things to do. Marskell (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are fine. The one of the old football team doesn't have an absolutely solid provenance or license but it's so old (and poor quality) I can't imagine anyone claiming copyright. I still have problems with the population statistic for the City Region (which is uncited) and the Climate sections (which need trimming down as they include information which is either trivial or not about Sheffield). These would prevent me from supporting the article at a FAC, but are not sufficient for me to "!vote" to delist on a FAR. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Great work to everyone who has cleaned up the article. However, as Dabomb87 has said, the climate section is in the most park unreferenced. Without going through the article, other bits and pieces are without sources. I suggest the article gets removed as a FA and when everything is sourced and copy edited, nominated for FA. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Unsourced bits under sections Climate and Sport. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems a shame to remove after all this time. But worked has stopped and concerns remain, so off it goes. Marskell (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Sheffield/archive1&oldid=1138477765"