Jump to content

Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • Early history, "states that in the 18th year of William's kingship (1083?)," would be better written as "...kingship, probably 1083,..."
    • In the Economy section, the bolding should be removed. Also, the external link needs to be removed or turned into a reference. There is also unnecessary bolding in the Music section and the High schools section.
    • Please make a thorough run-through of the article, checking for punctuation and spacing errors. Please standardize placement of references with punctuation - in some cases it is before, some after, and some after with a space in between (the latter of which should never happen).
    • There are a lot of very short (one and two sentence) paragraphs in the article, which make it choppy and harder to read. Would it be possible to combine some of these?
    • In the Further education section, "Evesham and Malvern Hills College, formerly Malvern Hills College, formerly Malvern College of Further Education." isn't even a full sentence, much less describing what the school is or why its relevant enough to be included in the article. Also, each of the subsections in the Education section are quite short - have you considered removing the subsection headers all together and just giving all of the education information in one section?
    •  DoneThe college was renamed just a few weeks ago and the mention has been updated to comply with the SWC main article. Generally, all schools (except primary school are de facto notable (WP:SCHOOLS), and articles about places list them.--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  DoneA much earlier draft of this education section had all this in one or two paragraphs, but as Malvern's development and economy is greatly anchored in its schools and services to education, with the amount of information that had to be included to express the town's development, it didn't look right, so the section was subdivided into its current presentation where each sub section is already large enough to comprises several paragraphs of its own.--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  DoneI have changed the format of this section for better readability. - and it has been improved once more by another editor.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a Done (references): b Done (citations to reliable sources): c Done (OR):
    • References are being checked as we work through the article to provide Harvard refs where possible. b.citations are sourced. c. There is no original research. Any research by the Wikipedia editors was done to locate sources in county libraries, the County Records Office, Ecclesiastical records, and the malvern Town Council.--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • In the Early history section, why does the sentence "It was destroyed by King Henry II in 1155." need five references?
    • It is perhaps a little over the top, but I assume they're listed because they all mention that Henry II slighted the castle. That said reference #17 in this version doesn't seem to mention when the castle was destroyed so could probably be safely removed from the article as it doesn't appear to say anything that other sources don't already say. There's no harm in having multiple references, although I would prefer to limit use in cases like this to the one or two most authoritative sources. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The paragraph was severely pruned following a project member's suggestion. The refs got left in. I will choose the most appropriate and delete the others.--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done--Kudpung (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added a few fact tags where I would like to see references.
    • Please make sure that all web references have publishers and access dates.
    •  DoneThere are a bunch of deadlinks in the references, see here.
    • There is only one dead link - Malvern Hospital and a new reference has now been provided. For the others, see the bus contributor's (Jeni) message below - these are all soft 404s on government pages which are being updated for 2010 by their webmasters. --Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  Done
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a Done (major aspects): Done b Done (focused):
    •  DoneThe major aspects (sections) of articles about places are addressed (according to recommendations by parent projects), and are expanded to include a sufficient amount of detail (focus), as for example demographics, etc.--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  Done
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Why is the image of the Cricket Club shoved way down at the bottom? Generally, there are no images below the References section, although this is not a hard and fast rule.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Once the issues above have started to be resolved, I will do a more thorough prose and source reliability check. A great start has been made on this article, just a bit more tweaking required to get to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a first review of this article. Although I was the major contributor and author, its present scope and form was achieved by carefully orchestrated teamwork of experienced Wiki authors, and local Malvern residents. I will address and improve the points you have listed, possibly disputing some that might turn out to be not necessary, and report here on the work done. I'm sure too that the other contributors will chime in with improvements. We'll try to get all these points rectified as soon as possible, and many thanks again for your kind and quick response so far.--Kudpung (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The references with links to the Worcestershire County Council website would normally work, but currently it looks like the entire site is down and having problems. Unfortunately there isn't a lot we can do about that, but given the importance of the website, there can be no doubts that it will back up as soon as possible! Jeni (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see the article's edit history, and the comments in the GA review above for details of action taken so far.--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Bus timetable references: The WCC website has been redesigned. The bus timetables are now all accessed from drop downs on a single page. I have updated the refs in the table. Someone please check that I have done this correctly :)--Kudpung (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Done by Jeni.--Kudpung (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a comma too many displaying in ref No. 19 - I can't figure out how to remove this. As for the rest, I've done as much as I can - see comments in the review above, and the article version history. Would someone care to have a final proof read for spelling, spacing, and punctuation?--Kudpung (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Donefixed: one was typed (unnecessary); the other came from the template. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Citation templates automatically add a comma between the author's last and first names when the individual fields are used (as opposed to "author="), so there was no need to add a comma manually. I've removed it. Nev1 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Further issues

In looking through the article, I have identified furhter issues that need to be addressed:

  1. Paragraph 1: "Town Council" cannot be the correct term for post-1900 status. A Town Council (since 1974) is a parish council for a town, usually one that lost borough status under the 1974 local government reorganisation. Please clarify 1900-74 status. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
     Donefixed - answer was later in article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. The mention of Dugdale Monasticon needs to be converted to a reference. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • OK w'ell cut out the entire section mention - too late to do anything about it now as we want to pass the GA. Sometimes less is more.
      • Reinstated, though strictly it should have volume and page: unfortunately, the text not accessible via Google books, as I had hoped. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • You'll see that I found and added an online citation to compliment your own. I almost never search via Google books. Too narrow. I start broad, using the Google 'advanced' search, so I can try different word combinations in the 'exact wording' field, along with different combinations in the other fields. So I go for the broadest return first, as there's no way to know beforehand where I'll find what I'm after or what format. This always captures any Google books, along with other sources, such as Internet Archives. If the returns are too numerous and the desired return not easy to spot, I just keep trying to narrow it down by being ever more specific, or trying more unique word combinations. Conversely, if the returns are too few, I try being less specific. Not a foolproof heuristic, but highly successful (I honed it in numerous literature databases some years ago, resulting in a rather large library), to the extent that if what you want is out there, you have a good chance of finding it.Wotnow (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
        • I find that advanced search still provides too many false positives. Like you I keep trying more detailed combinations of words. Another problem is that it is liable to bring up citations of a work rather than its text. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Reference 1 cites NALC, but that only says what a town or parish council is. Better reference needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is precisely to put the contention to bed that a town cannot be a parish.
      • The reference is certainly useful for making clear what a Town Council is, but we still need a citations for the amalgamation. I had hoped to find this in VCH, but it does not help. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
        •  Done I have added a citation directly from the Malven Town Council's website. This names Malvern as a town, so meets the criterion of verifiability, and related criteria.Wotnow (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
  4. Should Hanley Castle High School appear in the article at all? Hanley Castle is not part of the town of Malvern. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  DoneCut.
  5. Since there is no article on Malvern St James School, I have linked it to the existing one for Malvern Girls College: ideally that article should be renamed. I lack knowledge of the school sufficient to be able to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This has deliberately been left in as a red link in the hope that it will stimulate someone into creating the article. A red link in an article is not a negative point for a GA. I think a link to the Girls College would probably not be correct.
      --Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Tail-end comments, pending next set

I have now finished reformatting the references so that the reference layout is per Malvern Water. After saving the article at the point that the numbering was identical, I then removed one citation (St Anne's Well, duplicate ref that wasn't specific to St Anne's Well) and relocated it to the external links section, where it appears better suited (looks like an interesting link, so better not to lose it alltogether). This shoudl take the article closer to the point where Dana boomer can be asked to further review it, per comment below.Wotnow (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

  1. The Malvern-as-a-town citation issue is now resolved, as per issue #3 in section above.
  2. A relevant citation for the town's governance has also been inserted, given that the other citation pertains to guidelines, and is not specific to the naming of the governing body of Malvern (whereas obviously the council's own site is).
  3.  DoneRegarding the merging of Malvern Links and Malvern in 1900, the citation is not directly related. Such a merge would surely have entailed legislation. There must be a website containing a citable reference, even if it merely refers to the enacting legislation. Perhaps the London Gazette website or Parliamentary Archives gateway. Or perhpas someone can simply cite a local history book that they have or someone they know has.Wotnow (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow
I've added two references. One is from Hansard recording the Act of Parliament that sealed Malvern Link's fate to become just another of the many parts of the sprawling mess of Malvern..--Kudpung (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I was correct in my earlier surmise: the original reference I used was indeed from Hembry. I've added this too - now we have three watertight references. --Kudpung (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I see your additions. I'm impressed. I figured others may have a more efficient heuristic than me for solving that one. I've formatted the refs per request. It's coming together.Wotnow (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Next set of comments

Can someone please drop a note here when the reference formatting is complete, all publishers and access dates have been added, and the main editors agree that the article is basically complete and not likely to be edited for anything other than minor copyediting in the near future? It is rather difficult to thoroughly review an article when changes are ongoing. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The vast majority of the recent batch of edits were done to comply with your suggestions. The on-going work of replacing manually inserted refs with reference templates should not affect the overall quality of the article or a readers experience. The editors will confer, and we'll let you know when we consider the article complete.--Kudpung (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I realize that much of the recent editing was done in response to my suggestions and those of other editors. I was mainly meaning that the reference formatting should be finished before I work on the rest of the article, especially since it was stated above that additional information is being added to the refs (i.e., access dates and publishers). I'm going to ask (and have asked) for this information to be included anyway, and so I just think it would be easier if the main editors added everything they think they needed and then I went through and checked for anything I believed missing, rather than me going through and telling you all what you already know you need, if that makes any sense :) I look forward to your note, and thanks again to all of you for you hard work and quick responses. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dana, We've been through your points and ticked them as 'done', and run some final checks. Between us we've made about 200 improvements, corrections, and citation style conformity. We therefore feel that the article is as ready as it will ever be , and have stopped editing. Please go ahead and complete your review. If you do find anything still not quite right enough, we're still probably within the time limit to correct it. many thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Just as an FYI, I have this page watchlisted, so you don't need to drop a template on my talk page each time you leave a note for me, although you may still continue if you wish...

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I've made quite a few copyedits. Please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Done
    • Checked - all seem fine to me. The only thing I would change is under the "Malvern in Literature", where you added "Legend states...". Legend seems a bit strong, but I can't think of a better word right now. GyroMagician (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Post-dissolution, "The most marketable fabric of the monastic buildings". What is meant by marketable fabric?  Done
    • It means the stuff that could be sold off, such as the items that could be reused as building materials, and lead from the roof, etc., after the buildings were demolished.
    • Governance, "20 elected members, since 31 July 2009 chaired by Paul Tuthill." Is Tuthill notable for anything else? If not, there's probably no need to mention him by name, just end the sentence at "members". Done name removed.
    • The Population development section and the Research section duplicate quite a bit of information about TRE, which is not necessary, especially since the article is already rather long.
    • Research section, "(RRE, RSRE, DRA and DERA)" does not help at all. Either spell them all out, or remove the acronyms altogether.
    • I think it is useful to include the acronyms - most people locally know some set of the acronyms, without knowing what they actually stand for. As the article says The centre has been through a series of name changes, I think it is worth including them. They are all links, so the interested reader can easily find out what they are. Giving all the full names would be rather long. Somebody who has heard one or two names won't necessarily know they are all the same place, with largely the same employees. GyroMagician (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • However, you must consider that not just Malvern residents are going to be reading this article; rather, it will be read by people from all over the world. I'm from the US, and have no idea what any of the acronyms mean. Besides this, it's against MOS. WP:ACRONYM says "The full name should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter acronyms are acceptable,". Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Places of worship, "which the first full peal of (Grandsire Triples) was". Why the parentheses?  Done removed parens
    • Health facilities, "It could be described as a cottage hospital," Why "it could"? It either is or it isn't. Done Rm cottage hospital.
    • Health facilities, "Malvern also has several nursing and retirement homes for the care of senior citizens such as Howbury House in Pickersleigh Road, operated by Worcestershire County Council,[74] and Court Road.[75] and Spring Lane[76]centres run by BUPA." First, the punctuation needs some work. Second, why are these places notable enough to be individually named? The individual naming of non-notable persons and places is something that needs to be reviewed throughout the article.
    •  DoneTaken in context, they illustrate Malvern's infrastructure for health care, which particularly in the case of malvern, is exceptionally well developed. Neverthelss, because of doubts expressed, the sentence has been deleted.
    • Um, actually it hasn't been deleted. Also, the whole thing doesn't need to be deleted, keep the first "Malvern also has...care of senior citizens", and just end the sentence after that.  Done - edit conflict.
    • Transport section. Both the Road and Rail sections are really short. Why not combine them into a section named something like "Road and rail"?
    • The rail section was once larger. It was reduced to a short sentence at the request of an editor. The transport sections look small in because of the contrast with the very large bus section. The bus section may be to big.
    • Removing some of the bus information would be fine, although I don't believe it necessary. However, the really short sections make the article choppy. Is there a reason for not combining them? Dana boomer (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It's faster to find the information when it's in separate sections. It depends on whether you think the page should be read from start to finish, or if it is to be scanned quickly for what you want. Personally, if I'm looking for info about train station, or the nearest airport, I want a quick lookup rather than a block of prose. If the sections are to be combined, I think we should combine all four into one - why separate some modes of transport and group others? GyroMagician (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The information on spa buildings being turned into boarding schools is repeated in detail at least three times in the article. This isn't necessary, especially, as I've said, for an article that is already long. Please review the entire article for more instances of repetition, both within sections and in the article as a whole.  Done -partly: one instance removed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • I've added several fact tags where I feel additional references are needed. Each is accompanied by a hidden comment explaining my reasoning. Please feel free to remove the hidden comments once the references are added. Done
  • Agriculture: Done Rm sentence explaining the types of farming.
    • Ref #61 (Morice, Gerald (1979)) needs a publisher.  Done (removed duplicate ref)
    • Ref #89 ( "Schools in Malvern") is of iffy reliability, and will definitely be challenged if you plan on taking the article to FAC. The website admits that it gathers it information from "content submitted by users and information from Bizwiki - the free business listing site that anyone can edit".
    • Ref 89 is a link to the website of Gloucestershire Airport. Done
    • Ref #48 (Organ Building)  DoneThe page on the government wensite no longer exists. A new reference has been substituted.
    • Ref #51 (Demographic research statistics (2006) by Vivid Interface Ltd) is confusing. What is it? A book, magazine, pamphlet, website?
    •  DoneRef 51 is a link to the Three Counties Show history.
    • The reference numbers changed in response to other work done on the article. That is why I provided the title, so that if the numbers changed, the ref in question could still be found. It is currently Ref #52. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
    • What makes Ref #63 (^ "The Malvern Hills Tourist Information and Travel Guide") reliable? It appears to be a sales site where local businesses can advertise.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I've completed the references review and the prose review up through the History section (this is more of a note for myself than anything else. I will probably get to the rest of the prose review later tonight or tomorrow. Please feel free to work on the above issues in the meantime, or also to wait until I've finished the entire review. Dana boomer (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience while I completed this review. It is now finished, and I look forward to your responses. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
FA - It isvery unlikely that this article will ever be proposed for FA (certainly I won't be proposing it or doing much more work on it). The effort here was to try to get one major article within the Worcs project up to GA standard, and test the viability of teamwork coupled with our local knowledge, and Wikimanship. The members of this very small Worcs project will now probably be devoting their time to urgently improving some of the really bad important articles in the project's jurisdiction, in particular the Worcester, and Worcestershire pages that ought to be the county's flagship articles.--Kudpung (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no article on Malvern St James School, I have linked it to the existing one for Malvern Girls College: ideally that article should be renamed. I lack knowledge of the school sufficient to be able to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This has deliberately been left in as a red link in the hope that it will stimulate someone into creating the article. A red link in an article is not a negative point for a GA. I think a link to the Girls College would probably not be correct.
--Kudpung (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate the redlink, if you think it appropriate. This is in any event not a GA issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Girls College currently under move debate. New article already prepared for the move when the debate is closed after 7 days.

GA review confusion?

I may be wrong but it appears as if {{done}} tags and their explanations, and striking out of items addressed, is being done on two separate GA review templates above.--Kudpung (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - how did we end up with two copies in the first place? Tres confused GyroMagician (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually there arenow three. Maybe there's a problem with the GA review template that the site php programme keeps duplicating it.--Kudpung (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's making it close to impossible to see what's done and what others are doing - I'm going to let it cool off for a while. Does anyone have any idea how to fix? GyroMagician (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what is going on, but I've removed all of the duplicated information. I really apologize if I removed anyone's original comments in the process - it was not on purpose and please add them back in :) Please realize, however, that for the GA review template to work, all headers need to be third level (===), not second (==), and the use of second level headers may be part of the problem with the duplication. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
After taking a closer look at the edit history, I think the duplicated stuff may have been my fault as the aftermath of an edit conflict, and for that I apologize. I've done some more work to integrate comments (some editors were commenting on the first set of info, some on the second, so it was a bit confusing. Also, feel free to add "done" templates, but don't strike through things - I'm doing that as I consider things finished so that I know what still needs to be done or discussed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That was exciting. Thanks for fixing - that must have been quite a tangle. Re:strike-through, okay, no problem. GyroMagician (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Final comments

The article looks good, for the most part. My final concern is with the repetition that remains in the article, regarding two different subjects:

  • Telecommunications Research Establishment. Detailed information on what the company is and how many employees it originally brought to the area are repeated in the Population development and Research sections, which are right next to each other.  Done--Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The Imperial Hotel being turned into a school. This information is repeated in the Town center Done, Architecture Done and Independent schools Done sections, which makes for rather repetitive reading, especially when being duplicated yet again in the image caption Done in the schools section.

Especially as this article is already rather long (over 77kb), this duplication is unnecessary, and, as I said before, makes for repetitive reading. I realize that some work has already been done on this, but more work is needed. Once this issue is sorted, the article should be good to go for GA status. Thanks for all of your hard work so far! Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got it (with TRE) - I've made the population dev mention link to the research section within this article. I know I've missed this review, but does that work better?
Thanks for all your work reviewing the article - I think it is in better shape for your helpful comments. In particular, thanks for the detail in your comments. That has made it very easy to see what the problem is (even if it sometimes takes a bit more work to figure out the fix!). We'll keep at it, and try to trim things down a bit. GyroMagician (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the article is probably not quite so over long. Although it may not have been heard of much outside the UK, it compares favourably with other United Kingdom articles on towns of this size, history, and cultural importance. It has lent its name to many places in the former colonies including Malvern, Alabama; Malvern, Arkansas; Malvern, Illinois; Malvern, Iowa; Malvern, Ohio; Malvern, Pennsylvania; Malvern, South Australia State; Malvern, Victoria State, Australia; Malvern, Toronto, Canada; Malvern, Jamaica; Malvern, Johannesburg, South Africa; Malvern, New Zealand; Malvern, Barbados; and USS Malvern - the name of a number of USS ships.
I never mentioned any of this in the article, because ironically, I didn't want the article to get too long ;) --Kudpung (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the article still has some fat - I've had another pass through it, but I think more could still go. Could someone check the Governance section to make sure I haven't changed the meaning while putting the timeline in order (I feel like The Doctor)? I'd agree that the length is okay in comparison to other articles, but I think we can make it 'crisper'. And kill the remaining repetition.
For all the various Malverns there is a disambiguation page - although maybe we should add a link to it at the top of this page. GyroMagician (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I never said the article was too long (it's not), just that having repetitions of information makes it longer than it needs to be. Things are looking good so far; I'm going to take one more look through and then will pass it if I don't find anything glaring. Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tweeked the Governance section and research section - mainly providing better links. The right place for other places called Malvern is in Malvern, the disambiguation page. The only problem I can now see is an error message relating to an unused citation of Hansard: can this be used or deleted? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. When you see an error message like:
Cite error: <ref> tag with name "hansard" defined in <references> is not used in prior text.
it means you need to edit the references section and delete the ref named in the error message ("hansard" in this case). Or ask on the talk page and I'll find it ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I knew that I could do so (and how). The question was whether I should. Some one else added that reference, and my object was to give that person the opportunity to restore the reference where it belonged. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter, sorry, I've only just spotted your reply here. I see your point. Deleted references are always stored in the edit history, so they are easy to recover (I've done this several times for this article). But if it is something that is likely to be recovered, you can always enclose the ref in comment tags (<!-- -->) - whoever replaces the ref can then simply delete the tags. GyroMagician (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Final, final comment (I promise!)

  • On my final look through the article (don't know how I didn't see/recognize this before), I realized that the consistency of reference formatting is almost non-existant, probably due to the multiple editors not agreeing on a citation style before-hand. There are some refs given in-line, while most use the new format of all being at the end of the article. A few are still missing publishers (refs 90, 91, 92, that I can see. And, a mixture of "citation" and "cite xyz" templates are used. Due to some quirk that only the code experts understand, these two sets of templates do not work well together and screw up something with the formatting. I've never been able to understand what or why, just that they should never be combined in an article. Overall, I really don't care what reference style the article uses, so long as it is consistent. I know I keep saying "this is my final comment", but I actually think this one is... Dana boomer (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
WHEN GA-status is awarded, can dome one archive the talk page? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
IF ;) , and if people will stop messing around with referencing experiments right in the middle of a GA review that was requested on 6 December... I know you guys have gone to a lot of trouble with this referencing system, but personally I have found it to be neither particularly helpful nor easy or quick to implement, even if it is supposed to unclutter the text in an articles's editing window. (Maybe you can explain it better to me when we meet up in the UK in April)--Kudpung (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Them refs (#90, 91, 92) are fixed now. And in the process, I recalled how it came about that we had templates with "citation", and "cite xyz". When trying to implement templates for the Harvard style, I found that when placing citations in the bibliography section, those with "cite xyz" didn't work. I looked at a couple of articles utilising the Harvard-style templates, and saw that they used "citation". On the offchance that this would fix the problem, I changed the recalcitrant refs, and they worked (see e.g. this version at beginning of changeover, and this version just prior to reversion from Harvard to Malvern Water style.
When we reverted back to the previous referencing layout, having given the Harvard layout a good shot to see how it would fare, those citation changes didn't cause any ill effects, so remained. I can of course see something of where Dana is coming from. There wasn't any history of edit warring etc, and the article was stable, but them she notices these changes going on. If I were her, I'd feel remiss not to comment. I acknowledge that.
My point I guess is that we initially went down a 'wrong road', recognised it just in time, and despite it all, we pulled it off, with the refs reading as refs should, bar ordinary bits to fix (like publisher or whatever - ordinary stuff). Wotnow (talk) 05:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to mention. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd welcome as much comment as Dana would want to make (i.e. never say never, to use a self-exploding statement - gotta love those). Wotnow (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how I missed that either ;-) Publishers added and the final refs have been reformatted to the cite style - they were new ones, just added by Kudpung. As the referencing style of the article has recently changed, I am encouraging editors to add refs in whatever style they are happy with, and reformatting those that need it within a couple of days (although it helps if you tell us they're there folks!). I also added a HowTo explaining how to use the new style. There are two remaining refs using 'citation' rather than 'cite something' as I don't have a cite template for them (items from the Worcs county records office). If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears. From Wikipedia:citation templates: The various citation templates below may be freely mixed, since they all produce a similar format., so they should be mixable, but I agree that it is better to stick to one style as far as possible. GyroMagician (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I think consistency is useful, but it sometimes pays to define what sort of consistency matters. What matters is consistency in how the references read, insofar as is practical (some types of reference being by nature difficult). If that is achieved, the underlying wiki markup is less critical, which is the conclusion of the citation template you quote, our own experience, and the conclusion of others.
Regarding the "citation" vs "cite xyz", I think it is a non-issue. I've tried to explain this, by: (a) citing examples of mixed styles in other articles; (b) pointing out that the mixed styles sat unproblematically within this article, causing no problems whatsoever; and (c) demonstrating this by adding refs into my user page directly copied from a this article before they were changed. It's not logically possible to sustain a general claim that x cannot occur unproblematically, when there are specific examples showing it can and does occur unproblematically. That's the basis of Karl Popper's principle of falsification, which is purportedly the basis of much contemporary science, and indeed inferential statistics upon which so much of scientific analysis relies. So it's a non-issue, which I think on reflection Dana would concur with.
I think it reasonable to raise the issue if it was suspected of being a problem. Nothing wrong with that. But the argument has been adequately refuted, and I daresay that can be seen. Doesn't mean we shouldn't think about whether we can do the Worcs county records refs better. But there is only one issue of true significance with references. Do they convey to a reader who knows nothing of them, sufficient information to know what the reference refers to, and to track down the source if desired. If a reference of any sort does that, it does its job.
The Howto is good, and you'll see I've included reference and links to it on my user page, which itself serves as a singular resource for myself or anyone else interested, covering the history of the innovation through discussion, straw polling, advertising on the Wiki Signpost, template page links, and implementation by various editors. This along with example articles, and caveats for converts, including explicit acknowledgement and demonstration of peaceful coexistence of differing styles. In other words, I've elaborated on what the citation template states, having arrived at the same conclusion by a combination of experiment and logic. Not only that, but if you look at the discussions in July 2009, preceding the straw poll and implementation, you'll see the same argumnets we worked out, and sometimes exactly the same points, albeit more succinctly. A case of convergent evolution of ideas. A useful thing, not because it proves us 'right', but because we can compare their reasoning and ours, their solutions and ours, and see what that tells us. Fascinating when you think of it, as has been so much of the learning entailed in contributing to Wikipedia. Wotnow (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Kudpung asked me to help with sorting out the referencing. I am afraid that I do not have time, nor am I experienced in using them. They always seem very fiddly. However, I think our reviewer is being over-nice and setting too high a standard. WP is not an academic journal, where a consistent citation system laid down by the editors must be followed, and my experience is that each one is slightly different (though there are a number of themes). Last time I looked at the Worceshire Record Office referneces they were in the proper form, but no longer. These are archival references without (or with little) redundant information and should not be tampered with. They are no published works, and Worcestershire Record Office is a repository, not a publisher. I have put them back into the old format; please do not change them, unless there is a "cite archives" template.
There is not - probably becasue the use of MS sources in WP is discouraged.
What perhpas concerns me more is the "Further reading" section, which is a miscellany of works that might have been cited. We are not using Harvard citation (or at least not in a formal sense). If we were the footnotes would be in the form Jones 1985, 14, and Jones 1985 would be defined in a bibliography. An alternative would use Jones, Malvern, 14, similarly defining that work in a bibliography. However that is not anything like what we are doing. An example of this is that Bowden in "further reading" may be the work cited in note 5 via Internet. [wrong]
I have combined all references to Hembry et al into one reference. This seems in one case to have lost the page number 197 given in one place, possibly thorugh my misuse of the syntax. Ideally the Smith references would also be handled through one Harvard book citation, but I do not propose to interfere further. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Further Reading section is nothing more, and nothing less than that. Some of the books I read myself, some were recommended andI gave them a cursory glance. Books that are the subject of strict Harvard references are usually listed in a section called Bibliography. But as you say, let's not get carried away: this is not an academic paper, and it's not an FA review.--Kudpung (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I think there is now little left outstanding to be done, and I hope we can at last get it to GA status. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Yes, you're right, I was a little over-zealous with the WRO refs, thanks for correcting. We need to find a way to cite archives - but that might be a long question. You haven't lost the page number - it now appears at the citation point, in the form [13]:197 where 13 would be the ref and 197 the page number. I've updated the Smith refs to follow this style also. One possibility for the WRO refs would be something like<ref name=WRO899.601>{{citation | location = Worcestershire Records Office | id = 899.601 BA 9155}}</ref>. It's not a whole lot better, but at least it is in the cite format. Is this acceptable? GyroMagician (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your patience with my pickiness. Everything looks good to me with the article for GA status, and so I am passing it. I know that it was stated above that it is not planned to take this article to FA status in the near future, but if that is ever changed, please feel free to let me know, as I have more comments that would be specific to FA guidelines, but go above and beyond what GA status requires. Nice work, everyone! Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And a big thankyou to you Dana, for your own patience while prompting the best you could from the article. A fine job indeed, for which I commend you. For my part, I also thank and commend the team effort in this exercise. What a fascinating exercise it was, and a privilege to participate in. Regards to you all. Wotnow (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malvern,_Worcestershire/GA1&oldid=1073374351"