Talk:Barry Docks

Barry Docks has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 19, 2014. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Barry Docks appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Barry Docks were once the largest coal port in the world?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barry Docks.

Wikipedia

Wales High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barry Docks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave some initial comments soon. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"a few kilometres southwest of Cardiff" - does this article prefer imperial over metric (miles or km)? Just figured that old navy shipyards/harbours always used imperial!

Changed to miles - the article generally used imperial (metric in brackets) Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead summarises the article well, so this meets the GA criteria
"The island was about 1 mile" - was? Is it still one mile long?

It is no longer an island, and the former extent is not obvious, so I think this is right. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Laborers and shopkeepers" - Labourers?

Labourers comes up as a spelling error for me. Fixed. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"At peak there were 3,000 workers on the site" - in the lead it mentions that there was once between 8,000 and 10,000 men employed in the docks?

A peak of 3,000 workers during construction. After the job was done, the dock workers moved in. Wording tweaked to clarify. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images and captions meet the GA criteria

References

Some references require a journal subscription to open, however this shouldn't affect the GAN
There are no broken references

Close - promoted

I see no choice but to pass this article as it currently stands. The prose is in good standing, the lead complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria, the images and captions meet the GA criteria and the references and citations also meet the GA criteria. Overall this is a well-written, comprehensive and engaging article. The only issues I found with this article were a few minor copyediting issues which weren't worthy of affecting the GAN! Barry Docks sounds like a very interesting place - it still has the presence of its heydays, right? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barry Docks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905001623/http://barryatwar.info/the-second-world-war-2/ to http://barryatwar.info/the-second-world-war-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Level of detail

This article was tagged in February 2023 as {{Overly detailed}}, with the comment "there is excessive detail in the Construction and Facilities sections". I have removed the tag. The article is not particularly long for a GA article. The information in the Construction and Facilities sections is all relevant and could not be described as "intricate detail". It would not be reasonable to spin off sub-articles like "Construction of Barry Docks" or "Barry Docks Facilities", leaving behind a summary. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]